IAFTJ
I-20 EaAppeFrom I-6TxDOT, TranJanuary 201
ast Teendic635 to sportation P
15
exas Cces LouisiaPlanning an
orrido
ana Stad Programm
or Stud
ate Bordming Division
dy
der n
AMI
AppeMinut-20 East Te
endixte Ord
xas Corrido
x A er andr Study
d Resolutioons
Resolution supporting the
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
WHEREAS, Interstate Highway 20 provides an important east-west connection for travel and trade in Texas; WHEREAS, a Corridor Assessment study will be undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation to identify safety and capacity needs and to plan for the future; WHEREAS, The Tyler Area Chamber of Commerce and Tyler Economic Development Council have distributed a fact summary to various Committees and Boards on this important study; WHEREAS, members of these Boards and Committees have attended public hearings and have provided input on specific problems that need to be addressed in the Study; now THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tyler Area Chamber of Commerce and the Tyler Economic Development Council support this important Study and will work in partnership with local, regional, state and federal, public and private organizations to assure the recommendations presented in the final report are implemented. SIGNED this 17th day of June, 2014.
Rosemary Jones Tom Ellis Chairman Chairman Tyler Area Chamber of Commerce Tyler Economic Development Council
Appendix B Advisory Committee Meeting
Summaries I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting December 2, 2014 1 of 3
I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting
Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. Conference Call and WebEx DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY
Name Organization
Members Present on 9:00 a.m. Conference Call/WebEx
Judge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg County
Judge Bruce Wood Kaufman County
Virgil Melton, Jr. (alternate for Judge Rhita Koches) Van Zandt County
Jerry Dittman (alternate for Mayor John Monaco) City of Mesquite
Mayor Hal Richards City of Terrell
Mike Sims (alternate for Mayor Hal Richards) City of Terrell
Jeff Neal (alternate for Michael Morris) NCTCOG
Kevin Feldt (alternate for Michael Morris) NCTCOG
Karen Owen Longview MPO
Michael Howell City of Tyler, Tyler MPO
Members Present on 10:30 a.m. Conference Call/WebEx
Lauren Trimble (alternate for Judge Clay Jenkins) Dallas County
Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs
John Clary (alternate for Mayor Robert Nelson) City of Lindale
Kevin Feldt (alternate for Michael Morris) NCTCOG
Members Not Present on Conference Calls/WebEx
Judge Hugh Taylor Harrison County
Judge Joel Baker Smith County
Mayor Richard Lawrence City of Canton
Mayor Darren Rozell City of Forney
Mayor Jay Dean City of Longview
Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall
Mayor Harold Magill City of Seagoville
Linda Ryan Thomas NETRMA
Celia Boswell NETRMA
Gary Thomas DART
Purpose: The purpose of the two conference calls was to wrap-up efforts on I-20 east Texas Corridor Study by 1) reviewing the executive summary and implementation plan; and 2) finalizing the presentation to Texas Transportation Commission (TTC) on Dec. 18. Prior to the conference call, copies of the Executive Summary and the Summary of Second Public Outreach were emailed out to Advisory Committee members. Additionally, a PowerPoint was available to view on WebEx during the call. All three documents are available for review in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Welcome/Introductions: Roger Beall (TxDOT) welcomed attendees to the conference call and thanked members for participating. Members then announced their participation on the call.
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting December 2, 2014 2 of 3
Executive Summary Review: Roger Beall (TxDOT) provided members with an overview of the contents of the executive summary that was distributed prior to the conference call. Included in the executive summary is a general overview of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, a summary of comments received from public outreach, explanation of the main focuses of the study including safety, capacity and maintenance of the I-20 corridor, and an overview of the implementation and prioritization plan for areas identified as needed from this study. An Advisory Committee member asked for clarification on the proposed projects stating listed projects were recommendations, but not funded projects. Roger confirmed this was correct. An Advisory Committee member also asked if all median barrier installation projects were confined to Dallas County. Roger confirmed this was correct. Another member asked for more details on what the process will look like to begin implementing and funding the near-term improvements. Roger clarified that after the corridor plan is approved, the project lists will move onto the local TxDOT districts to identify areas where these projects could fit into their budgets and funding sources to incorporate these plans. Committee members asked that the local entities continue to be involved in this process with each of the districts since improvements will affect their communities directly. Members discussed the possibility of raising bridge vertical clearances to accommodate the possibility of future rail above the 18 feet allocation currently listed in the plan. Michael Sexton (Jacobs) explained that the current 16 bridges identified in the implementation plan are all in need of vertical clearance or load-bearing improvements outside of just raising the bridge heights to the recommended 18 feet. He also mentioned that the $1.2 billion estimate from Amtrak to implement a passenger rail service through East Texas did not include raising any bridge heights, so this would be an additional cost. Committee members discussed further and asked that it be put on record and included in the final report that they support further research being done on what it would cost to raise the bridge heights to accommodate future freight or high-speed rail requirements above the 18 feet requirement existing today. Texas Transportation Commission Presentation: Roger Beall (TxDOT) made an announcement regarding the upcoming TTC meeting to be held in Austin on December 18, 2014 beginning at 9 a.m. During this TTC meeting, the final report for the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study will be presented to the commissioners for approval. All Advisory Committee members were invited to attend in person. Additionally, Roger mentioned the presentation would be available on live stream. The link will be provided to Committee members before then. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:
Send link for streaming video of TTC meeting
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting December 2, 2014 3 of 3
Send full project report to Advisory Committee members Attachments:
1. Executive Summary 2. Summary of Second Public Outreach 3. PowerPoint Presentation
Meeting Staff: Roger Beall, Susan Howard, Cary Karnstadt, Rose Walker, Lindsey Kimmitt,Marcus Sandifer, and Cameron Muick (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia and Nair Barrios (Jacobs) Aimee Vance (K Strategies) District Staff Present: Steven Endres, Hal Stanford and Michelle Raglon (TxDOT Dallas District) Bob Ratcliff, Dennis Beckham, Deanne Simmons and Marcus Sandifer (TxDOT Atlanta District) Vernon Webb and Randy Hopmann (TxDOT Tyler District)
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Executive Summary From I-635 to Louisiana State Border TxDOT, Transportation Planning and Programming Division
III
Executive Summary
Interstate 20 (I-20) East Texas Corridor runs 155-miles from its interchange with I-635 in
Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana State Border. The broader corridor serves as an integral east-
west connection for both passenger travel and trade. Additionally, within East Texas, I-20
serves as the backbone of the transportation network for many smaller communities.
The East Texas portion of I-20 was opened to traffic
in 1967. This segment has had routine
maintenance and modest repairs/expansion over
its first 50 years. But as the interstate system ages
and trade increases, its mission becomes more
critical. In particular, major portions will require
expansion to serve anticipated growth in traffic.
Ramps and interchanges require reconstruction to
improve safety, and some bridges require
reconstruction to address deficiencies and
improve vertical clearances so they can better
serve freight movements. Finally, the existing
pavement will need to be reconstructed at some
point in order to serve the heavy freight traffic
demands it experiences.
In recognition of those needs, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) conducted
this study to make a comprehensive assessment of need, and to identify a master plan that
can be used to implement improvements in the most timely and efficient manner.
TxDOT worked closely with the public to identify opportunities for improvement. In keeping
with that goal, the I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee was created by the Texas
Transportation Commission. The committee included 22 members representing local
communities, the six counties in the study area, and regional transportation agencies.
Members of the committee were tasked with providing insight into their communities’ needs
as well as becoming spokespeople for the study’s objective and results. Table ES.1 below
includes the list of Advisory Committee members and their affiliation.
The I-20 corridor
faces challenges in
terms of safety,
capacity and major
maintenance needs.
IV
Table ES.1: Advisory Committee Members
Organization Member
Co
un
tie
s
Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins
Gregg County Judge Bill Stoudt
Harrison County Judge Hugh Taylor
Kaufman County Judge Bruce Wood
Smith County Judge Joel Baker
Van Zandt County Judge Rhita Koches / Commissioner Virgil
Melton Jr.
Cit
ies
City of Balch Springs Honorable Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon
City of Canton Honorable Mayor Richard W. Lawrence
City of Forney Honorable Mayor Darren Rozell
City of Lindale Honorable Mayor Robert Nelson
City of Longview Honorable Mayor Jay Dean
City of Marshall Honorable Mayor Ed Smith
City of Mesquite Honorable Mayor John Monaco
City of Seagoville Honorable Mayor Harold Magill
City of Terrell Honorable Mayor Hal Richards
City of Tyler Honorable Mayor Martin Heines / Mark
McDaniel
Oth
ers
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Gary C. Thomas
North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG)
Michael Morris
North East Texas Regional Mobility
Authority (NETRMA)
Linda Ryan Thomas / Celia Boswell
Longview MPO Karen Owen
Tyler Metropolitan Organization (MPO) Heather Nick
V
The public input
covered a range of
issues, but there
were a number of
recurring concerns
expressed by the
corridor users.
People living within
the study’s counties
expressed the need
for a third lane in
each direction of
travel; raised issues
with inconsistent
speed limits as well
as need for better
enforcement of it; and identified existence of inadequate access ramps as well as
hazardous conditions on wet roads. Figure ES.1 summarizes the breakdown of key
concerns by county.
ES.1 Safety Needs
Safety is among the main concerns of I-20 users. To ensure safety is addressed at
appropriate locations and in adequate manner, crash analyses were conducted. The
objective of crash analyses was to identify factors resulting in concentrations of crashes,
and use this information to define the most effective ways to reduce future crash potentials
by eliminating hazards or improving facility design.
During the years of 2008 to 2012, the state of Texas experienced an average crash rate of
43.9 crashes per hundred million vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for rural interstates. In
contrast, this portion of I-20 experienced an average crash rate of 55.61 crashes per
hundred million vehicle miles; which is 18 percent higher than the statewide average. This
suggests that the corridor has the potential to operate in a safer manner if improvements
can be implemented. If all of the necessary improvements were to be implemented
immediately, safety could be enhanced by forestalling almost 200 crashes per year - with a
reduction in economic costs of more than $ 60 million. Over the next 25 years, the safety
benefit could approach 4,500 crashes forestalled. Each crash has an impact on the quality
of human life, and on the economy. Using standard valuations, the savings to the economy
would be more than $ 1.5 Billion.
Figure ES.1: Major Concerns by County
VI
ES.2 Capacity Needs
By the Year 2040, the corridor is projected to have congestion throughout its entire 155
miles. Segments including I-20 from the Dallas County Line to FM 1641, I-20 from SH 34 to
FM 3202 and the 2 mile segment from SH 134 to the Texas/Louisiana Border are projected
to experience severe congestion, since more than 45,000 vehicles a day will use those
sections. Thus, 35 miles of the 155-mile corridor can be expected to operate under heavy
congestion by that time. This equates to more than 20 percent of the corridor’s length.
Because the most congested segments will be spread throughout the entire corridor, there
could be some “spill back” into less congested segments, creating more miles of congested
travel. This does not imply that I-20 will be unable to accommodate the increased level of
traffic, but travel will be less and the drop in Level of Service could have safety implications
for the corridor especially with high freight traffic demands such that I-20 experiences.
ES.2.1 Rail
The I-20 East Texas Corridor serves as a major connection between Texas and its neighbors
to the East. Both freight and passenger rail services are currently provided along portions of
the existing Union Pacific Railroad line located north of the I-20 corridor. This rail facility is a
major freight line connecting Dallas through Marshall with Memphis and St. Louis. The Texas
Eagle (Amtrak) also uses this line, turning north at Marshall to reach Chicago. As such rail
provides a big part of the corridor’s mobility for freight and to a lesser degree passenger
service. Members of the Advisory Committee and the general public expressed their interest
in furthering the development of rail along the corridor.
As with all passenger services operating on private freight railroad lines, lower priorities are
assigned to passenger operations, and there can be schedule conflicts with freight trains.
This limits the speed and frequency of passenger services offered. The Rail Division at
TxDOT supervised a study to determine the viability of an improved passenger rail option
along the corridor. Findings from this study were presented to members of the Advisory
Committee. Rail options along the corridor were deemed impractical in the near future
without a significant funding source which remains to be identified.
To enhance passenger service in the corridor, this study explored ways to make intercity bus
service more competitive with the private auto, and recommendations were developed to
create express bus service that could be connected to individual communities in a cost
effective manner.
ES.3 Maintenance Needs
Most of the pavement of I-20 is approaching 50 years of service which is almost twice its
originally intended life. At the same time, it is carrying many more trucks than it was
originally designed for, and those trucks are much heavier. During the last decade, because
VII
of tight fiscal resources, TxDOT has only been able to spend limited monies on this
highway’s upkeep. Such spending can keep the surface smooth, but fails to address
underlying problems that will eventually erupt into major repair efforts.
Beside cost, major repair efforts on I-20 could pose substantial inconveniences to the
motoring public, as the lanes must be closed and traffic diverted for extended periods while
the pavement is repaired or replaced. For this reason, it is critical that maintenance actions
be coordinated closely with the construction of safety and capacity improvements.
ES.4 Implementation Program Development
The purpose for this study is to develop an improvement program that TxDOT and local
governments can use in the long term maintenance and development of the corridor within
their fiscal constraints and project development schedules, without creating unnecessary
short term investments that would have to be torn out at some future date to accommodate
longer term improvements.
ES.4.1 Project Identification
A list of proposed projects along the corridor aimed at improving specific areas (capacity
expansion, safety, pavement rehabilitation, vertical clearances, and improved access to
adjacent lands) was prepared based on the technical analyses. These projects and
concepts were verified and amplified through feedback gathered during Advisory Committee
Meetings and public comments submitted during the public outreach efforts.
ES.4.2 Proposed Projects
The preliminary project list for the I-20 East Texas Corridor includes 143 projects. Once a
comprehensive but preliminary list was developed, projects were classified into categories
depending on their scope and impact.
ES.5 Project Prioritization
Limited resources and programming needs made prioritization of projects a necessity.
Advisory Committee Members identified their preferred projects based on results of the
technical evaluation and their personal knowledge of the study corridor.
Tables ES.2, ES.3 and ES.4 summarize priority projects by county and summarizes priority
projects based on evaluation results (technical score) along with Advisory Committee
preferences. Projects with low initial score were highlighted with purple in the following list
after being mentioned by the public as presenting safety issues during the Public Outreach
section of this study.
VIII
Table ES.2: West Section Prioritization
IX
Table ES.3: Central Section Prioritization
X
Table ES.4: East Section Prioritization
ES.5.1 Improvement Recommendations
Actions necessary to ensure the I-20 facility has the ability to meet future transportation
needs and maintain or improve the quality of life for residents are included as
recommendations throughout the corridor. These recommendations are as follows:
Construction of median barriers in locations where they are warranted but not yet
installed. This amounts to about 6 miles in Dallas County.
Upgrade/replacement of bridges that have low sufficiency ratings or whose vertical
clearances are less than current TxDOT standards; aiming to provide 18’ vertical
clearances for underpasses. This includes 16 bridges throughout the corridor.
Modernize ramp designs to serve increasing traffic demands and improve safety.
Reconstruct interchanges with operational or safety concerns.
Major rehabilitation of existing highway, including possible full-depth reconstruction
of pavement which has been in use for almost 50 years.
XI
Construction of additional lanes along I-20 for
three main reasons: to permit the maintenance of
traffic during other major improvements, reduce
crash frequencies caused by vehicle conflicts, and
alleviate future congestion.
Construction of new, one-way frontage roads or
reconstruction to convert existing two-way frontage
roads into safer one-way operations in areas
identified by local officials.
Local initiatives to foster more frequent/efficient
intercity bus service.
ES.6 Implementation Plan
Based on previously described feedback from the Advisory Committee, public input provided
through comments, and results from the needs assessment performed by staff; an
implementation plan was compiled for the I-20 Corridor.
The plan provides programmatic recommendations for the corridor as a whole, as well as
project level recommendations broken down by logical timeframe. Projects classified as
Near-Term are recommended to be completed between 2015 and 2020. Projects in the
Middle-Term category are recommended to be completed between 2021 and 2030. Finally,
Long-Term projects are considered in the 2031 to 2040 interval.
ES.6.1. Programmatic Structure
The short, medium, and long range nature of this program is intended to recognize funding
availability, project development considerations, and the timing of needs. All projects that
are immediately implementable because they are already part of an approved transportation
plan (including environmental approval and funding availability) have been included in the
short term plan since they are essentially “shovel ready”.
In some instances, one type of improvement is advisable during the near term, with related
improvements in the same general location being required at a later date. Rather than work
on a particular portion of I-20 multiple times (at much higher cost and greater inconvenience
to the motoring public), efforts have been made to coordinate improvements to minimize
cost and disruption. In some instances this means accelerating longer term improvements
so they occur at the same time as more immediate needs are addressed.
The programmatic recommendations include pursuing vertical clearance of 18’ for
underpasses along I-20 (primarily improving clearance when making other required
Major improvements
are needed on I-20
to improve safety, to
protect the
investment made in
the existing facility,
and to maintain or
enhance the ability
to move traffic.
XII
improvements), pursuing full depth pavement reconstruction as necessary (based on TTI-
style analyses to be performed in the near future), and encouraging local initiatives to foster
more frequent/efficient intercity bus service.
ES.6.2 Project Level Recommendations
Project level recommendations were created from the previously mentioned proposed
project lists within each region of the corridor. The prioritization process was used to define
specific sections of the project area needing action. Technical staff used these local
preferences and combined it with overall goals to identify projects and assign them to a
logical construction timeframe based on “shovel readiness”, cost, and ability to be
constructed independently or as part of a larger project.
Table ES-5 includes a total count of projects by type and desired timeframe in addition to
preliminary cost estimates for each phase. The overall cost in 2014 dollars is summarized
by type of improvement in Figure ES-2.
Table ES-5: Implementation Plan Summary
Near-Term Mid-Term Long-Term Total
Miles of Added Median Barrier 6 - - 6
# of Bridge Modifications 16 - - 16
# of Ramp/Interchange
Improvements 5 21 9 35
Miles of Frontage Road
Improvements 12 49 38 99
Miles of Additional Capacity - 65 25 90
Preliminary Cost Estimate
(2014$ Millions)* $220 $800 $390 $1,410
* Does not include full depth pavement reconstruction
Map ES.1: Implementation Plan Dallas & Kaufman, Map ES.2: Implementation Plan Van
Zandt, Map ES.3 Implementation Plan Smith, Map ES.4 Implementation Plan Gregg, Map
ES.5 Implementation Plan Harrison depict all projects considered in this implementation
plan along with their locations within said counties.
XIII
Figure ES.2: Implementation Plan Summary
ES.6.3 Funding
The cost of identified improvements along I-20 could be as much as $2.9 billion in today’s
dollars (2014$). In essence, this amounts to $ 100 million a year in need (2014$). The
total program cost will be higher, based on when each project is implemented over the next
25 years, coupled with the amount of inflation experienced in the intervening time.
The estimated funding available from existing sources, allocated to this portion of I-20 on a
VMT basis, is about $1.6 billion (in real dollars) without the recently passed Proposition 1;
and about $1.8 billion with Proposition 1. On an average basis, this suggests that
approximately $ 60 to 70 million of money will be available annually to support this
program. Thus, in today’s dollars the program will require $ 30 to 40 million more in funding
each year than is currently available. Sources for funds have not been identified at this
time. Obviously, there will be a funding shortfall and additional funding needs to be
developed to implement the program. This could mean enhancing current sources or
identifying other strategies.
The I-20 plan includes approximately $ 480 million of frontage road additions and
improvements, but because of limited resources and in consideration that such
improvements generally benefit local governments TxDOT policy is that any new frontage
roads desired by local entities be implemented using local funds. Approximately half of the
costs will be associated exclusively with new frontage roads that serve local development.
The other half will combine improved access to land parcels with improvements to safety
and mobility.
Map ES1 Draft Implementation Plan: Dallas and Kaufman Counties
XIV
Map ES.2 Draft Implementation Plan: Van Zandt County
XV
Map ES.3 Draft Implementation Plan: Smith County
XVI
Map ES.4 Draft Implementation Plan: Gregg County
XVII
Map ES.5 Draft Implementation Plan: Harrison County
XVIII
Summary of Second Public Outreach
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
DRAFT
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Update 2
Public Involvement Update
1. Activities
Following the development of a preliminary program of improvement projects for the I-20
East Texas Corridor, the Advisory Committee reviewed the plan and offered comments at a
meeting held in Balch Springs on September 10, 2014. After that meeting, the Advisory
Committee comments were incorporated into the preliminary program to create a Draft
implementation plan for members to share with their constituents. The second phase of
public outreach included public presentations performed by Advisory Members throughout
the corridor as well as a virtual meeting created to provide access to the draft
implementation plan for the I-20 Corridor. Presentations focused on improvement projects
selected as priorities in the corridor including near-, mid- and long-term projects.
Advisory Committee Public Outreach
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Advisory Committee members were asked to create public
outreach opportunities in their own communities with possible suggestions of social media
posts, website links and community presentations. Members submitted an activity form to
the study team that documented individual events.
Members submitted activity forms for six (6) events held during the second phase of public
involvement between Sept. 11 and Nov. 7, 2014, reaching out to over 3,056 local residents.
Information was shared with local organizations, city council meetings and metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) meetings. A brief summary is provided below:
Member Activity Forms Returned Total Audience Reach
Longview MPO 4 3,047*
Tyler MPO 1 9
Lindale City Council 1 12
*Longview MPO included information about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study in two email
blasts.
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Update 3
Virtual Open House
In addition to public
outreach efforts
conducted by advisory
committee members,
TxDOT hosted a virtual
open house online to
increase participation of
both citizens and corridor
users. The virtual open
house was hosted through
Survey Monkey and
included slides from the
community presentations
used by Advisory
Committee members.
This presentation included
project information, status
updates and proposed
projects included in the draft plan. Maps and illustrations were used throughout the virtual
open house, and opportunities to comment were available after each set of county-specific
slides.
A video was also produced of the community presentation including a voiced narrative of the
presentation. This video was uploaded to YouTube.
These internet based opportunities were publicized on various social media sites, and
created a number of additional interactions as detailed below:
Outreach Activity Availability Number of Participants
Virtual Open House Oct. 17 – Nov. 7, 2014 53
Video Presentation Oct. 20 – Nov. 7, 2014 138
Figure 1. Virtual Open House Video Presentation
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Update 4
Local Materials Distribution
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study materials including project overview fact sheets, county-
specific fact sheets with proposed project lists and maps, comment cards as well as pre-
addressed and stamped envelopes were made available at seven (7) locations throughout
the corridor during this same time period. Their availability was advertised in a press
release issued by TxDOT on Friday, Oct. 17.
Location County Availability
Texas Travel Information Center Harrison As of Oct. 17
Longview Convention and Visitors Bureau Gregg As of Oct. 17
Gateway Travel Plaza Gregg As of Oct. 17
Tyler State Park Smith As of Oct. 17
Tyler Chamber of Commerce Smith As of Oct. 17
Canton Visitors Bureau Van Zandt As of Oct. 17
Terrell Chamber of Commerce Kaufman As of Oct. 17
2. Public Comments
To ensure stakeholders were able to submit their opinions on the study, comments could be
provided via the project website, Facebook, Twitter, email, mail, or at public meetings.
All of the public comments received during the second phase of public outreach for the
study were compiled and managed in a tracking database. Comments received between
September 1, 2014 and November 7, 2014 are summarized below:
Method Comment was Received Number of Comments
Web-based 12
Mailed-in 0
Turned in at public outreach events 3
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Update 5
Virtual meeting comments 121
Total Comments Received 27
3. Summary
Comments were received from stakeholders in 12 counties and the study team prioritized
the following up to three themes per county:
Angelina County (One comment received)
– Additional non-truck lanes
– Increased speed limit
Dallas County (Two comments received)
– Room for future high-speed rail
– Prioritize frontage road needs based on population
Denton County (Two comments received)
– Additional lanes in each direction
– Increased speed limit between Longview and the State line
Ellis County (One comment received)
– Additional lanes in each direction
– Additional night time reflective lane markers
Fannin County (One comment received)
– High-speed rail
– Toll express lanes with exits every 30 miles
1 Open commentary was optional when responding to the survey associated with the virtual meeting.
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Update 6
Gregg County (One comment received)
– Focus on safety/interchange improvements before clearance
Harrison County (One comment received)
– Road repair needed (potholes)
Kaufman County (One comment received)
– Avoid frontage roads in FEMA floodplains
Parker County (One comment received)
– Additional lanes in each direction
Smith County (Two comments received)
– Additional lanes in each direction
– Room for future high-speed rail
Tarrant County (Two comments received)
– Additional lanes in each direction
– Restrict truck traffic from left lane
– Median safety
Wise County (One comment received)
– Addition of one non-tolled lane in each direction from State line to Terrell
To view all comments received, please see Attachment 1.
Update created by:
K Strategies Group
214.599.9766
www.kstrategies.com
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW
Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg, and Harrison Counties
December 2, 2014
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
AGENDA
2
Welcome and Purpose of Meeting
Roll Call
Review of Executive Summary
Draft Implementation Plan
Next Steps
Comments Due By COB December 9, 2014
Commission Meeting in Austin December 18, 2014
1
2
3
4
5
a.
b.
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee
3
Organization Member
Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins
Gregg County Judge Bill Stoudt (Chair)
Harrison County Judge Hugh Taylor
Kaufman County Judge Bruce Wood
Smith County Judge Joel Baker
Van Zandt County Judge Rhita Koches / Commissioner
Virgil Melton Jr.
City of Balch Springs Honorable Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon
City of Canton Honorable Mayor Richard W. Lawrence
City of Forney Honorable Mayor Darren Rozzell
City of Lindale Honorable Mayor Robert Nelson
City of Longview Honorable Mayor Jay Dean
Organization Member
City of Marshall Honorable Mayor Ed Smith
City of Mesquite Honorable Mayor John Monaco
City of Seagoville Honorable Mayor Harold Magill
City of Terrell Honorable Mayor Hal Richards
City of Tyler Honorable Mayor Martin Heines
DART Gary C. Thomas
NCTCOG Michael Morris
NETRMA Linda Ryan Thomas / Celia Boswell
Longview MPO Karen Owen
Tyler MPO Heather Nick
DART = Dallas Area Rapid Transit
NCTCOG = North Central Texas Council of Governments
NETRMA = North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority
MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
I-20 SUMMARY
Major improvements are needed on I-20
to improve safety, to protect the
investment made in the existing facility,
and to maintain or enhance the ability
to move people and goods.
4
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study – Draft Implementation Plan
5
Programmatic Recommendations:
Modernize ramp designs
Pursue vertical clearance of 18’ (minimum, but 23 ‘ is
desired to accommodate potential high speed passenger
rail and oversized/overweight trucks)
Consider pavement rehabilitation (depending on
pavement study recommendations)
Construct additional lanes for maintenance of traffic
during other major improvements, as well as safety and
capacity
Construct one-way frontage roads identified by local
officials
Consider partnering with bus service provider(s) to initiate
intercity express bus service
Further consider potential future passenger rail service
throughout the project development process to include
consideration of right-of-way, design, and innovative
financing opportunities
YEAR 2015 to 2040 IMPROVEMENTS
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
Proposed Improvements By Time Period and Cost
Near-Term
(2015-2020)
Mid-Term
(2021-2030)
Long-Term
(2031-2040) Total
Miles of Added Median Barrier
6 - - 6
# of Bridge Modifications 16 - - 16
# of Ramp/Interchange Improvements
5 21 9 35
Miles of Frontage Road Improvements
12 49 38 99
Miles of Additional Capacity - 65 25 90
Preliminary Cost Estimate (2014$
Millions)* $220 $800 $390 $1,410
* Does not include full depth pavement reconstruction
Implementation Plan Summary
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
I-20 East Texas Corridor – Implementation Plan Improvement Potential
7
Interchange Improvements By Term
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
DALLAS AND KAUFMAN COUNTIES
8
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
VAN ZANDT COUNTY
9
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
SMITH COUNTY
10
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
GREGG COUNTY
11
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
HARRISON COUNTY
12
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
NEXT STEPS
Need Committee comments on Executive Summary by COB Tuesday
December 9, 2014 (send to Roger Beall).
A Draft Report (116 pages and climbing that provides additional information
on the material summarized in the Executive Summary) can be made
available if desired.
All members are invited to attend Commission meeting in Austin on
December 18, 2014.
Hope to initiate Near Term Projects beginning next year.
Anticipate some discussion with Legislature to close funding gap on this and
other projects during the 2015 Session.
13
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014
Questions and Comments
Contact:
Roger Beall, P.E.
Corridor Planning Branch Manager,
Transportation Planning and Programming Division,
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 512-486-5154
14
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting September 10, 2014 1 of 5
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 10 a.m. Balch Springs Civic Center, Balch Springs, Texas
DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY
Name Organization
Members Present
Lauren Trimble (alternate for Judge Clay Jenkins) Dallas County
Judge Bruce Wood Kaufman County
Commissioner Virgil Milton Jr. (alternate for Judge Rhita Koches)
Van Zandt County
Judge Joel Baker* Smith County
Judge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg County
Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs
Mayor John Monaco City of Mesquite
Mayor Harold Magill City of Seagoville
Mike Sims (alternate for Mayor Hal Richards) City of Terrell
Mayor Martin Heines City of Tyler
Michael Morris NCTCOG
Michael Miles (alternate for Gary C. Thomas) DART
Linda Ryan Thomas NETRMA
Heather Nick* Tyler MPO
Karen Owen Longview MPO
Craig Lindholm (alternate for Mayor Robert Nelson) City of Lindale
Members Not Present
Judge Hugh Taylor Harrison County
Mayor Darren Rozell City of Forney
Mayor Hal Richards City of Terrell
Mayor Richard Lawrence City of Canton
Mayor Jay Dean City of Longview
Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall
*Joined the meeting via conference call To view the complete meeting sign‐in sheets, see Attachment 1.
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) discuss the outcomes of the June Advisory Committee meeting, review information on the Amtrak study, potential for alternate transportation options along the corridor, and committee input received in June; 2) review the draft implementation plan for the corridor including near (2015‐2020), mid (2021‐2030) and long term (2031‐2040)recommended projects; 3) review the initial public outreach update report; 4) plan for public outreach activities for the draft study; 5) and discuss next steps in the study process. PowerPoint presentations and exhibits were utilized to provide an overview of aforementioned items during the meeting. The agenda, presentations and exhibits are included as Attachment 2. Open House: The Advisory Committee meeting began with an open house featuring exhibits focusing on the following topics:
General corridor maps including planned/programmed improvement projects.
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting September 10, 2014 2 of 5
Proposed projects implementation programing maps.
Traffic, freight traffic volumes and level of service both existing and future.
Safety factors including existing frontage roads, vertical clearances and median barriers.
Crash hotspot analysis.
Weather‐related crash analysis.
Design‐centric interchange analysis results.
Timeline of proposed activities for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study.
Mission Statement for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee.
Examples of public outreach materials used on other TxDOT projects such as I‐69 and My35. Welcome/Introductions: Advisory Committee Chairman Judge Bill Stoudt (Gregg County) welcomed attendees to the meeting and thanked Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon, for hosting the meeting at the Balch Springs Civic Center. James Koch (TxDOT), acting as the Advisory Committee Facilitator, then asked committee members to introduce themselves. Commissioner Jeff Austin III (Texas Transportation Commission) addressed the Advisory Committee through conference call to remind committee members of the importance of this study and thank them for participating and for their valued input in the corridor study process. Safety Briefing: James Koch provided a safety briefing for all meeting attendees highlighting evacuation routes from the building and locations of restrooms, fire extinguishers, and tornado shelter areas within the facility. June Draft Meeting Summary Review: James Koch asked members to briefly review the June draft meeting summary report provided along with their meeting documentation. Included within the meeting summary was a status update on public outreach efforts, results for TxDOT’s recent Amtrak feasibility study, a presentation on emerging technologies in transportation, a briefing of the meeting between North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), Kaufman County and Dallas County on current and future projects, and the project prioritization exercise used during the Committee’s last meeting. Mr. Koch then asked if any of the members had any additional comments on the meeting summary. Michael Morris (NCTCOG) further explained that NCTCOG completed a draft report to provide an example to Dallas and Kaufman counties as to how one can start identifying needs and resources including safety programs. He also provided two handouts showing information reviewed with NCTCOG by Kaufman County and Dallas County, including City of Balch Springs. Michael emphasized that the next step in the process would be to set up a meeting with the TxDOT Dallas District to discuss some alternative funding options including the possibility of using local funds. He also mentioned that although planning is critical, early successes are equally critical to get the public on‐board and show forward momentum. He suggested that the Advisory Committee plan to focus on outcomes to lead to opportunities along the whole corridor. Funding options such as Proposition 1 could provide an opportunity to continue to create partnerships between TxDOT, local MPOs, cities and counties to come up with creative funding solutions.
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting September 10, 2014 3 of 5
Advisory Committee Interest in Non‐Highway Modes: Michael Sexton (Jacobs) reviewed with the committee members the outcomes of the East Texas Amtrak Passenger Rail Study, including background on the study and feasibility options. He then recapped information on the revenue and operations costs, including projected yearly ridership, revenue, operation costs and needed subsidy to provide the service. The cost of the capitalization and infrastructure needed to make this route feasible was also discussed. Based on this study, Michael explained that the needed subsidy to make this Amtrak line feasible would be between $8 and $10 million per year. Michael then emphasized since the Amtrak option may not be a feasible option due to the cost that it was important for committee members to consider other transportation options such as improved bus service like they had discussed in June. He also encouraged members to think of “last‐mile connections” like rental cars, local bus services, ride shares, cars‐to‐go, and similar options. Through the use of multiple modes of transportation, the corridor can provide passenger service options. Draft Implementation Plan: Michael Sexton (Jacobs) continued on with a presentation covering the corridor study’s draft implementation plan including near, mid and long term recommendations. He highlighted that this plan would cost approximately $100 million per year. Near‐term recommendations (2015 to 2020) included a focus on safety including filling in gaps in Dallas District where median barrier treatments do not exist, helping to avoid head‐on crashes. He explained that median safety measures have already been implemented in Tyler District (Van Zandt, Smith and Gregg Counties) and Atlanta District (Harrison County). In addition to safety measures, the near term recommendations include ramp improvements, missing frontage roads sections prioritized by Committee members and improving the vertical clearance of several overpasses. This first phase of recommendations would cost about $100 million to implement. Mid‐term recommendations (2021 to 2030) included addition of one lane of traffic in each direction in Kaufman and Gregg counties, construction of additional frontage roads in Smith, Gregg and Harrison counties and continued improvements of ramps and interchanges. Long term recommendations, spanning from 2031 to 2040, include addition of one lane of traffic in each direction in Smith County, construction of additional frontage roads in Gregg and Harrison counties and continued ramp improvements. Not included in these recommendations was the cost for rehabilitation of existing pavement along the corridor. According to the TxDOT districts, the majority of the pavement has been in use since 1967 with moderate improvements and is reaching the end of its useful life. Particular wear and tear has come from heavy truck traffic along the corridor. Michael explained that in order to replace the pavement, additional lanes would have to be added to accommodate vehicle traffic during the replacement period. He added that it would cost approximately $1.3 billion to replace all of the pavement on I‐20, making this the largest portion of the
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting September 10, 2014 4 of 5
implementation plan. Additionally, $1.3 billion has been identified for ramp improvements, vertical clearance improvements, frontage roads, and added capacity. Needed improvements have been estimated at an overall $2.6 billion. Mr. Sexton pointed out that a goal of $100 million a year in available expenditure was an aggressive goal, as I‐20 makes up only 5% of the interstate mileage in the State of Texas. Michael then opened the floor to any comments from Advisory Committee members. James Koch reminded members of a point that Michael Morris had made earlier in the meeting regarding the importance of coming up with a plan including short term objectives than can be completed quickly to show progress, while still having an overarching plan for the whole area. He also mentioned that Committee members needed to understand that some of these projects may have to wait their turn to receive funding. Michael Morris (NCTCOG) mentioned the need to think collectively as a Committee on financing options. He pointed out that not all of the cities and counties along the corridor are equally able to leverage funds, but that all of the cities and counties are Texas first, city second. He mentioned an action plan focused on outcomes instead of the planning process could be beneficial for the Committee. He also mentioned the importance of working collectively as a team to come up with funding options so as to see action more quickly on some of the near term recommendations. Committee members agreed on the importance of showing progress as soon as possible to help generate public support and media attention. It was mentioned that Committee members should reach out to the casinos in Shreveport to see if they would chip in to the improvement of the highway providing them access. Public Outreach: Susan Howard (TxDOT) presented the Initial Public Involvement Update to the Committee. The report, included in their packets, contained the results of the public outreach efforts conducted from April to June 2014 as part of the initial public communication effort. The report also included a summary of the most frequent comments received per county as well as the geographical origin and total number of all activity reports received to date. In preparation for the next phase of public involvement, Susan went through a list of other ways to conduct public outreach outside of a traditional public meeting. She provided each of the members with a calendar of upcoming events in their communities that could offer a potential to host a table or information booth at an already established event. In addition to hosting non‐traditional meetings, Susan mentioned the possibility of hosting a virtual open house to allow for extended periods of public comment. Members were also asked to let the study staff know of any needs they may have for project information materials. As a result, the necessity for more locally tailored materials was expressed by Committee members. They also mentioned liking the idea of a virtual public meeting that could be shared via social media outlets.
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting September 10, 2014 5 of 5
Next Steps: James Koch asked members to review the information in the draft implementation plan and return comments by September 17th to the study staff. He then opened the floor for any additional comments. A Committee member mentioned the need to accommodate for future rail in considerations like bridge heights and available right of way even if passenger rail is not feasible at this time. Another committee member mentioned the need to approach Greyhound or other “last‐mile connections” providers as a unified voice to ask for improved service in the corridor. Caroline Love (TxDOT) mentioned that the final I‐20 East Texas Study report will be presented to the Texas Transportation Commission at 9 a.m. on December 18th, if any of the members would like to join. James Koch asked for members to wrap up all public outreach efforts by November 7th to allow time for public input to be added into the final report. Susan Howard mentioned that members should keep the study staff informed of any public outreach efforts or needed materials. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:
Send follow‐up email to Committee members regarding public outreach needs and materials
Create county‐specific fact sheets and exhibits.
Research option of virtual meeting Attachments:
1. Advisory Committee Sign‐In Sheets 2. Meeting Agenda and Presentations 3. Draft Implementation Plan 4. Initial Public Involvement Update 5. Updated Public Involvement Materials 6. Public Involvement Opportunities Calendar 7. NCTCOG I‐20 Transportation Focus Handout
Meeting Staff: James Koch, Caroline Love, Susan Howard, Roger Beall, Cary Karnstadt, Lindsey Kimmitt (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia, Nair Barrios (Jacobs) Aimee Vance and Jenny Paredes (K Strategies)
Attachment 1 Advisory Committee Meeting Sign‐In
Sheets
Attachment 2 Meeting Agenda and
Presentation
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee September 10, 2014 10:00 am
Balch Springs Civic Center
12400 Elam Rd, Balch Springs, TX 75180
Call‐in: 866‐637‐1408 Conference Code: 312 746 6422#
WebEx: https://jacobs.webex.com/jacobs/j.php?J=637528872&PW=NMzMxNDhjYzk1
WebEx Password: I20EastTexas
Meeting #6 – Agenda
9:45 ‐ 10:00 am Registration and Open House
10:00 ‐ 10:10 am Welcome, Introductions Judge Stoudt
Safety Briefing James Koch
10:10 ‐ 10:20 am June Draft Meeting Summary Review James Koch
10:20 ‐ 10:45 am Advisory Committee Interest in Non‐Highway Mode Michael Sexton
TxDOT Findings on Passenger Rail
Review of Alternate Service Potentials
Committee Discussion/Input
10:45 ‐ 11:45 am Draft Corridor Plan Review Michael Sexton
11:45 ‐ 12:30 pm Lunch
12:30 ‐ 1:00 pm Initial Public Outreach Draft Report Review Susan Howard
1:00 ‐ 1:30 pm Preparation for Draft Plan Public Outreach Susan Howard
1:30 ‐ 1:45 pm Wrap‐up and Next Steps James Koch
1:45 pm Adjourn
9/11/2014
1
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014
I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEEMeeting #6
September 10, 2014
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014
Table of Contents
2
20
25
29
Draft Implementation Plan Review
Initial Public Outreach Draft Report Review
Draft Plan Public Outreach Preparation
22
33
44
34Questions55
3Non-Highway Mode Opportunities11
9/11/2014
2
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 3
Non-Highway Mode Opportunities
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014
Non-Highway Mode Opportunities
4
East Texas Passenger Rail Feasibility Study
9/11/2014
3
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014
Non-Highway Mode Opportunities
5
East Texas Passenger Rail Feasibility Study
Study OptionsOne Round Trip
/DayTwo Round Trips/
Day
Estimated Ridership 94,000 124,000
Revenue $ 1,327,000 $ 1,750,000
Revenue (Per Passenger) $ 14 $ 14
Operating Costs (Total) $ 9,595,000 $ 15,298,000
Operating Costs (Per Passenger) $ 102 $ 123
Capitalization and Infrastructure Costs
$ 67, 300, 000 $ 89, 400,000
Subsidy (Total) $ 8,268,000 $ 13,548,000
Subsidy (Per Passenger) $ 88 $ 109
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014
Non-Highway Mode Opportunities
6
East Texas Passenger Rail Feasibility Study
$- $50 $100 $150
1
2
$14.1
$14.1
$88.0
$109.3
Cost Per Rider
Nu
mb
er o
f R
ou
nd
Tri
ps
Revenue and Subsidy per Passenger
Revenue Per Rider
Subsidy Per Rider
9/11/2014
4
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 7
Potential Passenger Service Operational Changes
Non-Highway Mode Opportunities
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 8
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
1-Jan-14 1-Feb-14 1-Mar-14 1-Apr-14 1-May-14 1-Jun-14 1-Jul-14
Trav
el T
ime
(Ho
urs
)
Greyhound
Existing Greyhound Travel Times
Dal
las
Mes
qu
ite
Terr
ell
Tyle
r
Kilg
ore
Lo
ng
view
Ma
rsh
all
Sh
reve
po
rt
Non-Highway Mode Opportunities
9/11/2014
5
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 9
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
1-Jan-14 1-Feb-14 1-Mar-14 1-Apr-14 1-May-14 1-Jun-14 1-Jul-14
Trav
el T
ime
(Ho
urs
)Greyhound
Amtrak
Existing Greyhound and Amtrak Travel Times
Dal
las
Mes
qu
ite
Terr
ell
Tyle
r
Kilg
ore
Lo
ng
view
Ma
rsh
all
Sh
reve
po
rt
Non-Highway Mode Opportunities
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 10
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
1-Jan-14 1-Feb-14 1-Mar-14 1-Apr-14 1-May-14 1-Jun-14 1-Jul-14
Trav
el T
ime
(Ho
urs
)
Greyhound
Amtrak
Potential Express
Travel Time Comparison with Passenger Service Operation Improvements
Dal
las
Mes
qu
ite
Terr
ell
Tyle
r
Kilg
ore
Lo
ng
view
Ma
rsh
all
Sh
reve
po
rt
> 1 hour
Non-Highway Mode Opportunities
9/11/2014
6
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014
“Last Mile” Connections
11
Non-Highway Mode Opportunities
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 12
I-20 Freeway Corridor
Art
eria
l Str
eet
Collector/Local Street
Non-Highway Mode Opportunities
9/11/2014
7
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 13
I-20 Freeway Corridor
Art
eria
l Str
eet
Collector/Local Street
City Center
InterchangeArea
Non-Highway Mode Opportunities
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 14
According to a TTI report, half of Megabus riders are college students and young professionals between 18 and 30 years old. Minimal terminal infrastructure – usually just a parking lot.
Greyhound currently operates both traditional
and express services along I-20, and receives limited federal subsidies
to maintain lower-density routes
Intercity Bus Service
9/11/2014
8
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 15
More than 300 vehicles available in Austin
Vehicles available in:• Austin• Dallas• Fort Worth• Houston• San Antonio• San Marcos• Waco
Car Sharing
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 16
Peer-to-Peer Car & Ride Sharing
9/11/2014
9
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 17
B-Cycle – Available in 22 cities including Austin, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio
Social Bicycles – Available in 9 North American cities
Scoot – Available in San Francisco
Bike Sharing
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 18
Transit Planning Technology
9/11/2014
10
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 19
Committee Discussion about Community Desires
Non-Highway Mode Opportunities
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 20
Draft Implementation Plan Review
9/11/2014
11
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 21
Draft Plan : Recommended Near-Term Program
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 22
Draft Plan : Recommended Mid-Term Program
9/11/2014
12
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 23
Draft Plan : Recommended Long-Term Program
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014
Draft Plan : Recommended Implementation Program
24
9/11/2014
13
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 25
Initial Public Outreach Draft Report Review
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014
Initial Public Outreach Update
26
Method Comment was Received Number of Comments
Web-based 64
Mailed-In 7
Online Survey 144
Total Comments Received 215
9/11/2014
14
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014
Most Common Responses by County
27
c
c
c c
c c
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014
Activity Reports
28
Member Activity Forms Returned
Total Audience Reach
Balch Springs 5 153
Gregg County 1 N/A(newspaper article)
Harrison County 5 104
Longview MPO 5 61
Smith County 1 30
Tyler MPO 4 79
9/11/2014
15
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 29
Draft Plan Public Outreach Preparation
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 30
Outreach Materials
9/11/2014
16
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 31
VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE
Sample Outreach Methods
OPEN HOUSE AT THE MALL
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 32
STORE FRONT “MEET & GREET”
• Tailgate Party• Booth at Local Events/Festivals• City Council/Commissioner’s Court/MPO Meetings
Sample Outreach Methods
9/11/2014
17
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014
Public Outreach Opportunities
33
Dallas County Kaufman County Van Zandt County
Smith County Gregg County Harrison County
Third Annual Downtown Street Dance
Sept. 20
Pumpkin Fest Oct. 18
Flights of our Fathers Fly-In
Sept. 20
Halloween Festival and Thrillvania
Weekends in October
First Monday Trade Days
Oct. 2 - 5
Oct. 30 - Nov. 2
Nov. 27-30
East Texas State Fair
Sept. 19-28
Rose Festival Oct. 16-19
Harvest Festival and Livestock Show
Oct. 23-25Marshall Music Festival
Sept. 12-20
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014
Questions?
34
Attachment 3 Draft Implementation
Plan
I-20 East Texas Corridor
DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (September 2, 2014)
The Draft Implementation Plan for I-20 East Texas Corridor is based on several factors, including:
• Advisory Committee Feedback: The Advisory Committee provided feedback on overall priorities (add capacity, add/improve frontage roads, improve ramps/interchanges, etc.) as well as specific project priorities during the June 2014 meeting in Tyler.
• Public Input: The public provided input by e-mail, mailed letters, as well as comments during the public input survey period.
• Needs Assessment: Technical analyses were performed on elements along the corridor, including traffic demands, crash histories, vertical clearance standards, interchange designs, bridge conditions, and pavement deficiencies.
The Draft Plan provides programmatic recommendations along I-20 corridor, as well as project level recommendations categorized into Near-Term (2015-2020), Mid-Term (2021-2030), and Long Term (2031-2040) phases.
Programmatic Recommendations: • Modernize ramp designs to serve increasing traffic demands and improve safety. • Pursue vertical clearance of 18’ for underpasses along I-20, primarily improving
clearance when making other required improvements along I-20 and crossing facilities (preliminary cost estimate – varies by location)
• Full-depth reconstruction of pavement along I-20 that has been in use for almost 50 years (preliminary cost estimate for entire corridor up to $1.3 billion).
• Construction of additional lanes to permit the maintenance of traffic during other major improvements, to reduce crash frequencies, and to alleviate future congestion.
• Construction of one-way frontage roads in areas identified by local officials.
Project Level Recommendations: The project level recommendations are shown graphically in the attached maps. The table lists projects categorized into near-term, mid-term, and long-term, and includes project details of improvement type, location, and preliminary cost estimate.
Near-Term Mid-Term Long-Term Total # of Bridge Modifications 16 - - 16 # of Ramp/Interchange Improvements 5 21 9 35 Miles of Frontage Road Improvements 12 49 38 99 Miles of Additional Capacity - 65 25 90 Preliminary Cost Estimate (2014$ Millions)* $102.3 $768.2 $390.3 $1,260.8 * Does not include full depth pavement reconstruction
$726,770,000
$482,670,000
$51,311,660
$1,281,600,000
Additional Capacity
Frontage Roads
Bridge, Ramp, and InterchangeImprovements
Pavement Rehabillitation
I‐20 PROGRAM ELEMENTS ( 2014 Dollars)
!(!(
!(!(!(
#*
#*
§̈¦20
§̈¦635
D A L L A S K A U F M A NTC-4 TC-5
TC-6
TC-7
AE-1 AF-1 AF-2AF-4
AB-1
TJ-10TJ-8
£¤175
£¤80
UV352
UV87
UV352
UV205 UV34
UV557
UV34
598
3039
740
9861392
688
1389
2728
429
2965
2932
2757
2728
2727
548
1641
987
740
2728
2578
741
429
148
TB-2
TD-1
AF-13AD-3
AD-2
PostOak Bend
Talty
TerrellBalch
Springs
Seagoville
Sunnyvale
Dallas
Mesquite
HutchinsWilmer
Forney
Combine
Crandall OakRidge
UP
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!( !(!( !( !(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
SH 42
TYLER
49
29,000(37%)
TC-8
TB-8 AF-7
TC-20
TD-2
TB-7
TB-6
TD-6 AF-6
TI-9
TC-16TC-17
TI-11
TD-12
TB-1
TA-2
TJ-9
TJ-11
TJ-12
TD-4TJ-13
TD-5TJ-13
TI-10TJ-6
TA-1
TB-3
TB-4
TB-5
TD-12 TB-9
TC-7
TD-3
TD-7
TD-8
TD-9 TD-10 TD-11
1861316
3270
1801
16B
2908773
3271
3311
2422
3056
16
778
2911
2015
857
724
1801
1504
757
90
279
857
10021795
858
1805
849
1653
1255
1404
1652
2869
2659
859
16
3227
1804
2015
1252
314
2909
2710
16
858
1995
1253
773
17
1255
1651
47
14
16
UV564
UV155
UV155
UV243
UV198
UV19 UV64 UV110
£¤271
£¤69
£¤80
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
BigSandy
Mineola
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Gladewater
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
!(!( !( !( !( !( !(
!(!(
#*
#*#*
T EX
AS
T EX
AS
L OU
SI A
NA
L OU
SI A
NA
LO
UI S
I AN
AT E
XA
ST E
XA
S
TC-21 TC-22 TC-23 TC-24
TC-25
TG-10TG-11
TG-12
AF-8
AF-10AF-11 AF-12
349
2087
2011
3053
2276
2983
UV149
UV31 UV322
£¤259
§̈¦20
T EX
AS
T EX
AS
349
2087
2011
3053
2276
2983
UV149
UV31 UV322
£¤259
§̈¦20
T EX
AS
T EX
AS
1998
450
2275
9
134
2199
2208
9
1845
449
3272
16
2605
28792685
3379
1997
UV281UV300 UV502
UV63
UV43
UV390
UV485
UV390
UV154
£¤80
£¤271
£¤259
£¤80
§̈¦20
TG-7
TG-14AF-9
TJ-1 TJ-3
TJ-7 TJ-2
TJ-15
TJ-4
TJ-16TJ-17
TG-7TG-8 TG-9
TD-15TI-16
§̈¦369*
£¤80
£¤259
£¤80
UV322
UV156
UV322UV31
UV149
UV31
UV42UV135
2963
1844
2205
451
2276
16
3053
2011
2207
9
134
9
349
968
1252
£¤259G
TD-10 TD-10 TD-14
TC-20
TI-3 AD-2
1997
451
2983
3379
2276
26852879
2605
16 968
3053
3272
2011
2206
3251
449
1845
2087
2207
92208
2199
134
9
2275
450
349
1998
31968
1252
2625
UV154
UV322
UV390
UV485
UV390
UV31
UV43
UV63
UV149
UV502UV300
UV31UV42UV135
UV43
UV281
£¤80
£¤259
£¤259
£¤59
£¤271
£¤80
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
Marshall
UnionGrove
Kilgore
HallsvilleWaskom
LongviewWhiteOak
Scottsville
LakeportEaston
GladewaterClarksville
City
WarrenCity
UP
SEPC
UPBNSF
UP
UP
WEST
CENTRAL
EAST
0 5 102.5Miles
Date: 9/2/2014
¯DRAFT
§̈¦20
RecommendedProgram
(2015 - 2040)
TC-34TC-33
* I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Working Group Interstate Route Option Preliminary Recommendation ( August 2014 )Potential Interstate route option location is based on a high level planning study and is for il lustrative purposes only. Exact location and configuration will be determined during the environmental process.
I -20 Corridor
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties
!( Long Term Ramp Improvement
!( Near Term Ramp Improvement
!( Mid Term Ramp Rehabilitation
Near Term Vertical Clearance Adjustment
Near Term Proposed Frontage Roads
Mid Term Proposed Frontage Roads
Long Term Proposed Frontage Roads
Mid Term Addition of Capacity
Long Term Addition of Capacity
#* Near Term Bridge Replacement
Near Term Median Barrier Installation
!(#*§̈¦20
§̈¦635
D A L L A S K A U F M A N
TJ-8TJ-10AF-2
£¤175
£¤80
UV352
UV87
UV352
UV205 UV34
UV557
UV34
598
3039
740
9861392
688
1389
2728
429
2965
2932
2757
2728
2727
548
1641
987
740
2728
2578
741
429
148
AE-1 AF-1AF-4 AB-1
AD-1
PostOak Bend
Talty
TerrellBalch
Springs
Seagoville
Sunnyvale
Dallas
Mesquite
HutchinsWilmer
Forney
Combine
Crandall OakRidge
UP
!(
!(
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
TYLER
49
29,000(37%)
TJ-9
TJ-13
TJ-13
TJ-6
TB-1
TJ-11
TA-2
TJ-12
1861316
3270
1801
16B
2908773
3271
3311
2422
3056
16
778
2911
2015
857
724
1801
1504
757
90
279
857
10021795
858
1805
849
1653
1255
1404
1652
2869
2659
859
16
3227
1804
2015
1252
314
2909
2710
16
858
1995
1253
773
17
1255
1651
47
14
16
UV564
UV155
UV155
UV243
UV198
UV19
UV64
UV110
£¤271
£¤69
£¤80§̈¦20
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
BigSandy
Mineola
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Gladewater
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
!(#*
#*#*
T EX
AS
T EX
AS
L OU
SI A
NA
L OU
SI A
NA
LO
UI S
I AN
AT E
XA
ST E
XA
S
TJ-2
TJ-15
TJ-4
TJ-16 TJ-17
TI-16
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
£¤80
£¤259
£¤259
£¤59
£¤271
£¤80
UV322
UV156
UV154
UV322
UV390
UV485
UV390
UV31
UV43
UV63
UV149
UV502UV300
UV31
UV42UV135
UV43
UV281
2963
1844
2205
1997
451
2983
3379
2276
26852879
2605
16
968
3053
3272
2011
2206
3251
449
1845
2087
2207
9
2208
2199
134
9
2275
450
349
1998
31
968
1252
2625
£¤259G
TJ-1
TJ-7
TJ-3
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
Marshall
UnionGrove
Kilgore
Hallsville
Waskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
LakeportEaston
GladewaterClarksville
City
WarrenCity
UP
SEPC
BNSF
UP
UP
WEST
CENTRAL
EAST
0 5 102.5Miles
Date: 9/2/2014
¯
#* Bridge Replacement
!( Ramp Improvement
Vertical Clearance Adjustment
Proposed Frontage Roads
Addition of Capacity
Median Barrier Installation
I -20 Corridor
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties
Recommended Near-Term Program
(2015 - 2020)
§̈¦20 DRAFT
!(!(
!(!(
!(§̈¦20
§̈¦635
D A L L A S K A U F M A NTC-4 TC-5
TC-6
TC-7
£¤175
£¤80
UV352
UV87
UV352
UV205 UV34
UV557
UV34
598
3039
740
9861392
688
1389
2728
429
2965
2932
2757
2728
2727
548
1641
987
740
2728
2578
741
429
148
TB-2
TD-1
AF-13AD-3
AD-2
PostOak Bend
Talty
TerrellBalch
Springs
Seagoville
Sunnyvale
Dallas
Mesquite
HutchinsWilmer
Forney
Combine
Crandall OakRidge
UP
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!( !(!( !( !(
!(
!(!(!(
49
29,000(37%)
TC-8
TB-8 AF-7
TC-20
TA-1
TB-3
TB-4
TB-5
TD-12 TB-9
TC-7
TD-3
TD-7
TD-8
TD-9 TD-10 TD-11
1861316
3270
1801
16B
2908773
3271
3311
2422
3056
16
778
2911
2015
857
724
1801
1504
757
90
279
857
10021795
858
1805
849
1653
1255
1404
1652
2869
2659
859
16
3227
1804
2015
1252
314
2909
2710
16
858
1995
1253
773
17
1255
1651
47
14
16
UV564
UV155
UV155
UV243
UV198
UV19 UV64 UV110
£¤271
£¤69
£¤80
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
BigSandy
Mineola
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Gladewater
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
!( !( !( !( !( !(!(
T EX
AS
T EX
AS
L OU
SI A
NA
L OU
SI A
NA
LO
UI S
I AN
AT E
XA
ST E
XA
S
TJ-2TC-21 TC-22 TC-23
TC-24
TC-25
TG-10TG-11
TG-12
AF-8
AF-10 AF-11 AF-12§̈¦369*
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
£¤80
£¤259
£¤259
£¤59
£¤271
£¤80
UV322
UV156
UV154
UV322
UV390
UV485
UV390
UV31
UV43
UV63
UV149
UV502UV300
UV31
UV42UV135
UV43
UV281
2963
1844
2205
1997
451
2983
3379
2276
26852879
2605
16
968
3053
3272
2011
2206
3251
449
1845
2087
2207
9
2208
2199
134
9
2275
450
349
1998
31
968
1252
2625
£¤259G
TD-10 TD-10 TD-14
TC-20
TI-3 AD-2
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
Marshall
UnionGrove
Kilgore
Hallsville
Waskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
LakeportEaston
GladewaterClarksville
City
WarrenCity
UP
SEPC
BNSF
UP
UP
WEST
CENTRAL
EAST
0 5 102.5Miles
Date: 9/2/2014
¯DRAFT§̈¦20
Recommended Mid-Term Program
(2021 - 2030)
* I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Working Group Interstate Route Option Preliminary Recommendation ( August 2014 )Potential Interstate route option location is based on a high level planning study and is for il lustrative purposes only. Exact location and configuration will be determined during the environmental process.
#* Bridge Replacement
!( Ramp Rehabilitation
Vertical Clearance
Addition of Capacity
I -20 Corridor
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties
Proposed Frontage Roads
§̈¦20
§̈¦635
D A L L A S K A U F M A N£¤175
£¤80
UV352
UV87
UV352
UV205 UV34
UV557
UV34
598
3039
740
9861392
688
1389
2728
429
2965
2932
2757
2728
2727
548
1641
987
740
2728
2578
741
429
148
PostOak Bend
Talty
TerrellBalch
Springs
Seagoville
Sunnyvale
Dallas
Mesquite
HutchinsWilmer
Forney
Combine
Crandall OakRidge
UP
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(49
29,000(37%)
TI-9
TI-10TC-17
TC-18 TC-19
AF-6
TB-6
TB-7
TD-2
TD-4
TD-5
TD-6
TC-16
TI-11TD-12
1861316
3270
1801
16B
2908773
3271
3311
2422
3056
16
778
2911
2015
857
724
1801
1504
757
90
279
857
10021795
858
1805
849
1653
1255
1404
1652
2869
2659
859
16
3227
1804
2015
1252
314
2909
2710
16
858
1995
1253
773
17
1255
1651
47
14
16
UV564
UV155
UV155
UV243
UV198
UV19 UV64 UV110
£¤271
£¤69
£¤80
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
BigSandy
Mineola
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Gladewater
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
!(!(
T EX
AS
T EX
AS
L OU
SI A
NA
L OU
SI A
NA
LO
UI S
I AN
AT E
XA
ST E
XA
S
TG-8
TG-14AF-9
TC-33
TC-34
§̈¦369*
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
£¤80
£¤259
£¤259
£¤59
£¤271
£¤80
UV322
UV156
UV154
UV322
UV390
UV485
UV390
UV31
UV43
UV63
UV149
UV502UV300
UV31
UV42UV135
UV43
UV281
2963
1844
2205
1997
451
2983
3379
2276
26852879
2605
16
968
3053
3272
2011
2206
3251
449
1845
2087
2207
9
2208
2199
134
9
2275
450
349
1998
31
968
1252
2625
£¤259G
TG-7 TD-15TG-9
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
Marshall
UnionGrove
Kilgore
Hallsville
Waskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
LakeportEaston
GladewaterClarksville
City
WarrenCity
UP
SEPC
BNSF
UP
UP
WEST
CENTRAL
EAST
0 5 102.5Miles
Date: 9/2/2014
¯Recommended
Long-Term Program(2031 - 2040)
§̈¦20 DRAFT* I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Working Group Interstate Route Option Preliminary Recommendation ( August 2014 )Potential Interstate route option location is based on a high level planning study and is for il lustrative purposes only. Exact location and configuration will be determined during the environmental process.
#* Bridge Replacement
!( Ramp Improvement
Addition of Capacity
I -20 Corridor
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties
Proposed Frontage Roads
Vertical Clearance Adjustment
Project ID
Project Description Location / Limits Improvement Type CountyLength (Mi)
Cost Estimate (2014$)
RECOMMENDED NEAR TERM PROGRAM (2015‐2020)AE‐1 Median Barrier I‐635 to Dallas County Line Safety Improvement Dallas 6.0 $4,720,000
AF‐1 Frontage Roads Lawson Road to FM 740 New One‐way Frontage Roads Dallas 4.0 $35,070,000
AF‐2 Frontage Roads FM 740 to FM 741 New One‐way Frontage Roads Dallas 3.9 $18,850,000
AF‐3 Frontage Roads SH 557 to FM 138 New One‐way Frontage Roads, including upgrade existing to one‐way Kaufman 3.7 $24,130,000
AB‐1 Ramp Improvement SH 34 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Kaufman N/A $2,590,000
TJ‐10 Bridge Modifications SH 34 Replace SH 34 SB Underpass Bridge Kaufman N/A $884,520
TJ‐8 Bridge Modifications SH 34 I‐20 West Bound Vertical Clearance Improvement Kaufman N/A $504,000
AD‐1 Ramp Improvement FM 429 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Kaufman N/A $440,000
TJ‐11 Bridge Modifications FM 47 Replace FM 47 Underpass Van Zandt N/A $672,840
TJ‐9 Bridge Modifications FM 859 Vertical Clearance Improvement Van Zandt N/A $1,070,000
TJ‐12 Bridge Modifications FM 17 Replace FM 17 Underpass Van Zandt N/A $607,320
TJ‐13 Bridge Modifications FM 1255 Replace FM 1255 Underpass Van Zandt N/A $798,840
TJ‐14 Bridge Modifications FM 773 Replace FM 773 Underpass Van Zandt N/A $607,320
TB‐1 Ramp Improvement FM 314 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $460,000
TJ‐6 Bridge Modifications FM 849 Replace FM 849 Underpass Smith N/A $1,510,000
TA‐2 Ramp Improvement US 69 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $320,000
TJ‐1 Bridge Modifications Fritz Swanson Road Vertical Clearance Improvement Gregg N/A $1,180,000
TJ‐3 Bridge Modifications FM 2087 Vertical Clearance Improvement Gregg N/A $1,550,000
TJ‐15 Bridge Modifications MLK Blvd Replace MLK Blvd Underpass Gregg N/A $748,440
TJ‐2 Bridge Modifications MLK Blvd Vertical Clearance Improvement Gregg N/A $1,070,000
TI‐16 Ramp Improvement Loop 281 E Ramp/Interchange Improvements Harrison N/A $308,460
TJ‐7 Bridge Modifications Lansing Switch Road Replace Bridge Harrison N/A $1,320,000
TJ‐16 Bridge Modifications FM 450 Replace FM 450 Underpass Harrison N/A $619,920
TJ‐4 Bridge Modifications FM 450 Vertical Clearance Improvement Harrison N/A $1,170,000
TJ‐17 Bridge Modifications US 59 Vertical Clearance Improvement Harrison N/A $1,070,000
Recommended Near Term Program Sub‐total $102,271,660RECOMMENDED MID TERM PROGRAM (2021‐2030)TC‐3 Added Capacity Dallas County Line to FM 741 Add one‐lane in each direction Kaufman 4.0 $19,610,000
TC‐4 Added Capacity FM 741 to SH 557 Add one‐lane in each direction Kaufman 8.6 $26,580,000
AC‐1 Added Capacity SH 557 to Wilson Road Add one‐lane in each direction Kaufman 4.3 $23,280,000
TC‐5 Added Capacity Wilson Road to FM 310 Add one‐lane in each direction Kaufman 3.7 $31,500,000
TC‐6 Added Capacity FM 310 to Van Zandt County Line Add one‐lane in each direction Kaufman/Van Zandt 6.4 $23,170,000
TC‐7 Added Capacity Van Zandt County Line to FM 47 Add one‐lane in each direction Van Zandt 3.4 $30,540,000
TC‐8 Added Capacity FM 47 to US 64 Add one‐lane in each direction Van Zandt 6.4 $55,240,000
TC‐20 Added Capacity US 271 to Gregg County Line Add one‐lane in each direction Smith 8.7 $74,650,000
TC‐21 Added Capacity Smtih County Line to SH 135 Add one‐lane in each direction Gregg 3.5 $31,300,000
TC‐22 Added Capacity SH 135 to SH 42 Add one‐lane in each direction Gregg 3.7 $31,480,000
TC‐23 Added Capacity SH 42 to FM 2087 Add one‐lane in each direction Gregg 4.3 $29,790,000
TC‐24 Added Capacity FM 2087 to Harrison County Line Add one‐lane in each direction Gregg 5.2 $57,520,000
TC‐25 Added Capacity Gregg County Line to Loop 281 Add one‐lane in each direction Harrison 2.3 $34,120,000
AF‐13 Frontage Roads FM 741 to SH 557 New One‐way Frontage Roads Kaufman 8.6 $49,990,000
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Implementation Plan (DRAFT)September 2, 2014 (version 2)
Page 1 of 3
Project ID
Project Description Location / Limits Improvement Type CountyLength (Mi)
Cost Estimate (2014$)
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Implementation Plan (DRAFT)September 2, 2014 (version 2)
AF‐7 Frontage Roads Toll 49 to US 271 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Smith 18.0 $107,640,000
TG‐10 Frontage Roads FM 2087 to Loop 281W New One‐way Frontage Roads Gregg 4.2 $24,420,000
TG‐11 Frontage Roads Loop 281W to Harrison County Line New One‐way Frontage Roads Gregg 1.0 $5,820,000
TG‐12/A Frontage Roads Gregg County Line to Loop 281 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Harrison 2.3 $29,220,000
AF‐10 Frontage Roads SH 43 to FM 31 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Harrison 6.6 $42,420,000
AF‐11 Frontage Roads FM 31 to FM 2199 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Harrison 3.2 $8,300,000
AF‐12 Frontage Roads FM 2199 to US 80 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Harrison 4.7 $13,770,000
AD‐3 Ramp Improvement Wilson Road Ramp/Interchange Improvements Kaufman N/A $820,000
AD‐2 Ramp Improvement FM 429 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Kaufman N/A $280,000
TD‐1 Ramp Improvement CR 310 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Kaufman N/A $1,050,000
TB‐2 Ramp Improvement FM 2965 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Kaufman N/A $2,830,000
TB‐3 Ramp Improvement FM 47 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $1,790,000
TB‐4 Ramp Improvement CR 3412 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $770,000
TB‐5 Ramp Improvement US 64 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $1,010,000
TA‐1 Ramp Improvement SH 19 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $540,000
TD‐3 Ramp Improvement FM 17 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $1,900,000
TD‐7 Ramp Improvement CR 431 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $630,000
TB‐8 Ramp Improvement FM 35 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $600,000
TD‐12 Ramp Improvement FM 14 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $610,000
TB‐9 Ramp Improvement FM 2015 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $780,000
TD‐8 Ramp Improvement SH 155 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $420,000
TD‐9 Ramp Improvement FM 757 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $580,000
TD‐10 Ramp Improvement CR 3101 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $500,000
TD‐11 Ramp Improvement CR 3111 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $530,000
TD‐14 Ramp Improvement SH 135 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Gregg N/A $320,000
TI‐13 Ramp Improvement SH 42 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Gregg N/A $180,000
AD‐2 Ramp Improvement SH 31 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Gregg N/A $280,000
TJ‐2 Ramp Improvement MLK Blvd Ramp/Interchange Improvements Gregg N/A $1,420,000
Recommended Mid Term Program Sub‐total $768,200,000RECOMMENDED LONG TERM PROGRAM (2031‐2040)TC‐16 Added Capacity Toll 49 to US 69 Add one‐lane in each direction Smith 2.9 $69,560,000
TC‐17 Added Capacity US 69 to FM 14 Add one‐lane in each direction Smith 6.2 $57,700,000
TC‐18 Added Capacity FM 14 to SH 155 Add one‐lane in each direction Smith 5.6 $38,850,000
TC‐19 Added Capacity SH 155 to US 271 Add one‐lane in each direction Smith 3.3 $31,180,000TC‐33 Added Capacity US 80 to FM 134 Add one‐lane in each direction Harrison 4.5 $38,080,000
TC‐34 Added Capacity FM 134 to Louisiana State Line Add one‐lane in each direction Harrison 2.9 $22,620,000
AF‐6 Frontage Roads FM 314 to SH 110 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Smith 7.3 $35,250,000
TG‐7 Frontage Roads US 271 to Gregg County Line New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Smith 8.6 $25,000,000
TG‐8 Frontage Roads Smith County Line to SH 42 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Gregg 7.3 $21,220,000
TG‐9 Frontage Roads SH 42 to FM 2087 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Gregg 4.3 $12,500,000
TG‐14 Frontage Roads FM 450 to FM 968 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Harrison 4.2 $12,210,000
TG‐14 Frontage Roads FM 968 to SH 43 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Harrison 5.8 $16,860,000
TD‐2 Ramp Improvement Hayden Rd/CR 3442 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $840,000
Page 2 of 3
Project ID
Project Description Location / Limits Improvement Type CountyLength (Mi)
Cost Estimate (2014$)
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Implementation Plan (DRAFT)September 2, 2014 (version 2)
TB‐6 Ramp Improvement FM 1255 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $2,000,000
TD‐4 Ramp Improvement CR 1308 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $730,000
TB‐7 Ramp Improvement CR 1311 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $860,000
TD‐5 Ramp Improvement FM 773/FM 16 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $1,450,000
TD‐6 Ramp Improvement CR 426 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $2,000,000
TI‐9 Ramp Improvement CR 110 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $490,000
TI‐10 Ramp Improvement FM 849 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $460,000
TI‐11 Ramp Improvement US 271 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $420,000
Recommended Long Term Program Sub‐total $390,280,000Recommended Project Level Implementation Program Sub‐total $1,260,751,660
Full Depth Pavement Reconstruction Preliminary Estimate $1,281,600,000
Recommended Implementation Program Total $2,542,351,660
Page 3 of 3
Attachment 4 Initial Public
Involvement Update
Public Involvement Update I-20 East Texas Corridor Study DRAFT
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 2
Public Involvement Plan The I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee members identified the importance of involving local communities in the study as an overarching goal for the study. To guide this, a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) was created outlining outreach activities focused on increasing awareness of the project and proactively communicating project information to stakeholders and the public.
Public Involvement Goals The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study PIP focused on the following goals:
Provide a proactive communications program
Communicate timely and easily understood information
Create engaging opportunities for the public to be involved with the study
Generate feedback to assist the Advisory Committee in prioritizing opportunities and concerns
Public Involvement Objectives The main objectives for the PIP included:
Develop a cohesive message and brand for the study
Utilize multiple modes of communication to reach stakeholders
Collaborate with Advisory Committee members to gain assistance communicating information to the public
Develop tools to gather focused feedback
Informational Materials As part of the PIP, the following informational materials were developed to share information about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study with project stakeholders.
Project Website Serving as a general information hub for the project, the project website was created in August 2013 and updated throughout the project to include recent project information. While on the website, users could view:
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
Project fact sheet
Meeting minutes
Project maps
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 3
Additionally, links were provided for an online comment form available the entire duration of the project and to the study’s public survey made available during May and June 2014.
FAQs A list of FAQs was compiled based on suggestions from the I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee members. These questions were then answered and provided to the public through the project website and available through the committee members’ local offices beginning in February 2014.
Project Fact Sheet A project fact sheet was developed including a general overview of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, an explanation of what would be evaluated as part of the study scope, details on how to stay involved with the study, and information on the Advisory Committee members. The project fact sheet was provided to the public through the project website and available through the committee members’ local offices beginning in February 2014.
Public Outreach To encourage public participation in the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, a variety of public outreach methods were used to allow for stakeholder participation.
Public Comments To ensure stakeholders were able to submit comments on the study, comment could be received by website, Facebook, Twitter, email, mail, or at public meetings. Additionally, the online survey made available in May 2014 allowed for comments on the study. All of the public comments received during the study were compiled and managed in a tracking database. Comments received between February 2014 and July 2014 are summarized below:
Method Comment was Received Number of Comments
Web-based 64 Mailed-In 7 Online Survey 1441 Total Comments Received 215
1 Open commentary was optional when responding the Online Survey.
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 4
Comments were received from stakeholders in 18 counties and the study team prioritized the following three themes per county:
Map of Comments Received by County
Cherokee County (One comment received) – Make I-20 a double decker freeway to put cars on the top level and trucks on the
bottom
Collin County (One comment received) – Create a dedicated truck lane in each direction of I-20
Dallas County (Eight comments received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Raise the speed limit on some portions of I-20 to make it consistent throughout – Add an HOV lane in each direction of I-20
Denton County (One comment received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Keep the 75 mile per hour (MPH) speed limit – Better enforcement of “slower traffic keep to the right” rule
Ellis County (One comment received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Keep a low speed limit – Better traffic enforcement
Gregg County (55 comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Hazardous wet road conditions
Harrison County (15 comments received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 5
– Add frontage roads – Add entrance and exit ramp at Buck Sherrod Road
Henderson County (Two comments received) – Lower the speed limit
Kaufman County (One comment received) – Lower the speed limit – Better enforcement of traffic law – Modify entrance and exit ramps
Rusk County (One comment received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Add a fourth lane between Kilgore and Longview – Modify entrance and exit ramps
Shelby County (One comment received) – Add entrance and exit ramps to ease traffic back-ups2 – Add frontage roads – Real-time notifications of accidents and traffic
Smith County (101 comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps – Add frontage roads – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20
Van Zandt County (Five comments received) – Create a dedicated truck lane in each direction of I-20 – Road surface improvements – Improve rest area facilities in Gregg County
Tarrant County (Four comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Road surface improvements
Upshur County (Three comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps
Caddo Parrish (Two comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps
2 Area not specified. Comment referenced the ability to get off the highway when accidents back up traffic.
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 6
– Raise the speed limit to make it consistent – Road surface improvements west of Terrell
County unknown (Five comments received) – Create a dedicated truck lane in each direction of I-20 – Lower speed limits – Provide passenger and freight rail service (Dallas – Tyler – Louisiana)
To view all comments received, please see Attachment 1. Additionally, through the submittal of comments and feedback from the online public survey, the following projects were identified as needing improvement along the I-20 corridor that had not already been included in the technical staff project list as of June 11, 2014: New Ramps
Harrison County – Buck Sherrod Rd (determined
to be too close to adjacent interchanges)
Hydroplaning areas
Van Zandt – From FM 19 to CR 110
Smith – From US 69 to FM 14
Gregg – From US 42 to FM 2087 – From FM 2087 to Loop 281 W
Harrison – From US 259 to Loop 281 E
Bridges
Gregg – Sabine River bridge widening
Resurfacing
Dallas – From I-635 to Kaufman County
Line
Kaufman – From Dallas/ Kaufman County
Line to FM 2965
Harrison – From Loop 281 E to FM 134
(Waskom) Interchange Improvement
Dallas County – Loop 635 – US 175
Ramp Modifications
Smith County – Toll 49 – CR 411
Gregg – US 259 (Eastman Rd.) – SH 135
Harrison County – Spur 156
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 7
Online Public Survey To gather specific feedback on priorities for the project and to assist the Advisory Committee in highlighting projects needing improvements in the study corridor, an online public survey was created and made available through May and June 2014. The survey consisted of nine questions, summarized below:
1. In what county do you live within the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study area?
Answer Options Response Count
Dallas County 17 Kaufman County 4 Van Zandt County 2 Smith County 128 Gregg County 57 Harrison County 18 Other (please specify) 27 answered question 253 skipped question 1
2. How often do you travel along the I-20 corridor area between I-635 in Dallas County
and the Texas/Louisiana state line?
Answer Options Response Count
Daily 57 Weekly 62 Monthly 102 Rarely 24 answered question 245 skipped question 9
3. Which of the following options best describes why you most frequently use I-20?
Answer Options Response Count
Commuting to your work place 52 Traveling for work away from your regular work place 45 Traveling for personal use (entertainment/vacation) 127 Hauling Freight 4 Other (please specify) 17 answered question 245 skipped question 9
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 8
4. Please select up to three strategies you think should be the highest priorities for the I-20 study.
Answer Options Response Percent 3
Response Count
Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for travelers 72.6% 164 Improve safety 62.4% 141 Consider current and future multimodal transportation needs (highway, freight rail, intercity bus service, passenger rail, etc.)
46.5% 105
Involve local communities 43.4% 98 Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for freight 23.9% 54 Enhance air quality 4.9% 11 Other (please specify) 8
answered question 226 skipped question 28
5. Please select up to three of the following improvement areas you think are most
important along the corridor.
Answer Options Response Percent 2
Response Count
Adding lanes 58.3% 133 Improving or adding frontage roads 50.0% 114 Reconfiguring entrance and exit ramps 50.0% 114
Creating passenger service opportunities (e.g. passenger rail, intercity bus)
32.5% 74
Improving median safety 26.8% 61 Adjusting speed limits up 21.5% 49 Adjusting speed limits down 7.5% 17 Raising bridge heights 0.4% 1 Other (please specify) 15
answered question 228 skipped question 26
6. What specific areas along I-20 within your county do you feel need attention and
what do you think should be done? (Example: lengthen the ramp at the [Street Name or Exit], lower the speed limit near City Name, etc.)
139 respondents provided comments regarding specific areas within their county that have been included in the comment section above.
7. What areas along I-20 outside of your county do you feel need immediate attention?
(Example: intersection of highways) Please provide name of specific city or between specific cities, etc.
106 respondents provided comments regarding specific areas outside of their county that have been included in the comment section above.
3 Survey respondents were given the opportunity to choose multiple options.
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 9
8. Please leave any additional comments about the I-20 study below:
41 respondents provided additional comments that have been included in the comment section above.
9. To join our mailing list for the project, please fill out the information below. Your
information will be kept confidential and used only for this study.
64 respondents provided information for the mailing list.
Advisory Committee Public Outreach In addition to the tools provided by the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, advisory committee members were asked to create public outreach opportunities in their own communities with possible suggestions of social media posts, website links and community presentations. Members were then asked to submit an activity form to the study team for tracking of individual events. Members submitted activity forms for 21 events held between February and June 2014 reaching out to over 400 local residents. Information was shared with chambers of commerce, local organizations, homeowners associations and at city council meetings and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) meetings. More information is provided below:
Member Activity Forms Returned Total Audience Reach
Balch Springs 5 153
Gregg County 1 N/A
(newspaper article)
Harrison County 5 104
Longview MPO 5 61
Smith County 1 30
Tyler MPO 4 79
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 10
Additionally, advisory committee members were responsible for sharing information through social media, website links and through the following news sources:
Tyler Morning Telegraph
Marshall News Messenger
KETK NBC – Tyler
Longview News Journal
Update created by: K Strategies Group 214.599.9766 www.kstrategies.com [email protected]
Attachment 5 Updated Public
Involvement Materials
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Page | 1 September 3, 2014
Talking Points
I‐20 corridor is an integral east‐west connection for both travel and
trade in Texas
18‐month study to conclude in December 2014
Evaluate 155‐mile stretch of I‐20 from I‐635 in Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana State Line
Focus on current and future safety and enhanced mobility needs
Identify and prioritize opportunities for improvements along the corridor
Study Overview
21 members
o All counties along the corridor represented Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg and
Harrison counties o Cities with population over 15,000 people o Transportation stakeholders represented
DART, NCTCOG, netRMA, Longview MPO, Tyler MPO
Work with other collaborative partners from the community
Assist TxDOT with assessing the rural transportation needs
Advisory Committee
You can get involved throughout the duration of the study
o Presentations to local governments, civic and community groups, elected officials, chambers of commerce, and economic development groups
o Open Houses
Information to be updated and distributed regularly via o Website updates at http://www.txdot.gov/inside‐
txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20‐east‐corridor.html o Fact Sheets and FAQs o Facebook (www.facebook.com/TxDOT) o Twitter (@TxDOT, @TxDOTDallasPIO, @TYLPIO,
@TxDOTAtlanta) o Press Releases
Public Outreach
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
LET US HEAR FROM YOU!
Please provide your comments on the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study.
To submit comments online, please visit our website at ww.txdot.gov/inside‐txdot/projects/studies/statewide/ i20‐east‐corridor.html
Comment Card
Please provide your comments below on the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study.
NAME:
EMAIL:
ZIP:
I am employed by TxDOT.
I do business with TxDOT.
I could benefit monetarily from the project or other item about which I am commenting on.
Texas Transportation Code, §201.811(a)(5)
Comments/Questions:
Check any that apply to you:
Join our email list:
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Activity Form
Committee Member Name:
Organization or Group Presented To:
Location: Date:
# of Attendees (approximate):
Questions/Comments:
Follow Up Requests:
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at [email protected] or mail to:
Texas Department of Transportation
Attn: Caroline Love 125 East 11th St. Austin, TX 78701
Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign-in list, or any other items that may
help to document or provide a record of this activity.
September 3, 2014
Frequently Asked Questions
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Page | 1 September 3, 2014
Want more information?
Visit our website at www.txdot.gov/inside‐txdot/projects/studies/ statewide/i20‐east‐corridor.html
What is the I-2O East Texas Corridor Study?
The I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study being conducted by TxDOT is focused on evaluating the current safety and capacity needs along the 155‐mile stretch of I‐20 from I‐635 in Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana state line.
1.
Why is this study important?
The I‐20 corridor currently serves as an integral east‐west connection for both travel and trade in Texas. As the interstate system ages and trade increases, identifying opportunities for improvement becomes more critical. Assessing the current corridor conditions and identifying future growth potential are important to ensuring this route meets the needs of the region for decades to come.
2.
Who is involved with the study?
A major component of this study is to work directly with public and private stakeholders through an Advisory Committee. The I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee was established in August 2013 by the Texas Transportation Commission to assist TxDOT in assessing the rural transportation needs along I‐20 by providing locally focused input and recommendations. This group is currently comprised of 21 elected officials and other stakeholders along the I‐20 corridor and includes representatives from:
Counties (Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg, Harrison)
Cities (Balch Springs, Mesquite, Seagoville, Forney, Terrell, Canton, Lindale, Tyler, Longview, Marshall)
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NCTCOG, Tyler, Longview)
North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority (NETRMA)
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)
In addition to the members of the committee, the Advisory Committee will be working closely with several collaborating partners, including:
Farm Bureau
Native American Tribes
Economic Development Organizations
Private Businesses Interests
Rural Planning Organizations
Freight Rail and Passenger Rail Interest Groups
Transit Interest Groups
3.
Frequently Asked Questions
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Page | 2 September 3, 2014
Want more information?
Visit our website at www.txdot.gov/inside‐txdot/projects/studies/ statewide/i20‐east‐corridor.html
What will be reviewed as part of the study?
This study will focus on evaluating safety concerns and capacity needs along the corridor. This could include additional frontage roads, ramp/interchange redesign, improving vertical clearance, and passenger rail alternatives. The purpose of including representatives of all major areas within the corridor is to ensure that a complete view of the needs for the future of the I‐20 corridor is considered.
4.
How long will the study last?
The study is expected to be complete in December 2014, with Committee members conducting public outreach on the draft plan during Fall 2014.
5.
What areas will be included in the study?
The area included within this study spans 155 miles along I‐20 from I‐635 in Dallas County to the Texas/Louisiana state line. In some areas, other regional highways or roadways may be included in the study when considering solutions to problems, but the primary focus of this study is along I‐20.
6.
What will be the end result of the study?
Ultimately, the result of the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study will serve as a guide for TxDOT to begin improvements throughout the corridor by providing a prioritized list of projects as well as possible funding solutions.
7.
How can I participate in the study?
Throughout the 18‐month study, we will be updating our website regularly, issuing press releases about important topics, and reaching out to you through social media. In addition, we will be hosting outreach events to gather input on the draft plan. You can also submit comments on our website at www.txdot.gov/inside‐txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20‐east‐corridor.html. To date, we have received 215 comments and reached out to more than 400 members of the public through various activities.
8.
9/8/2014
1
Community Presentation
I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR STUDY
About the Study
• 18-month study to be complete in December 2014
• Focused on evaluating safety and capacity needs along I-20 through East Texas
• Work with stakeholders to identify and prioritize opportunities for improvement
9/8/2014
2
Study Area
155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 near Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana state line through Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg and Harrison counties
3
Why is this study needed?
• I-20 is an important east-west connection for travel and trade in Texas
• Interstate system is aging and population and trade are increasing
• Assess current safety andcapacity needs and plan forthe future
• Identify rural transportation needs
4
9/8/2014
3
What will be reviewed?
5
SAFETY CONCERN
EXAMPLES
Median barriers
Vertical clearance of underpasses and bridges
Interchange design
Crash hotspots
CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT
EXAMPLES
Additional frontage roads
Additional lanes
Alternate routes
Freight needs
Passenger rail options
Advisory Committee
Assist TxDOT by providing locally focused input and recommendations
Helps provide feedback to TxDOT on issues and concerns to be considered, prioritization of projects needed and possible funding alternatives
Members are made up of 21 elected officials and other key transportation stakeholders (full list on next slide)
Works closely with other key organizations to help provide accurate and well-rounded feedback
6
9/8/2014
4
Advisory Committee Members
7
Entity Member Name TitleDallas County Clay Jenkins County JudgeKaufman County Bruce Wood County JudgeVan Zandt County Rhita Koches County JudgeSmith County Joel Baker County JudgeGregg County Bill Stoudt (Chair) County JudgeHarrison County Hugh Taylor County JudgeCity of Balch Springs Dr. Carrie Gordan MayorCity of Mesquite John Monaco MayorCity of Seagoville Harold Magill MayorCity of Forney Darren Rozell MayorCity of Terrell Hal Richards MayorCity of Canton Richard W. Lawrence MayorCity of Lindale Robert Nelson MayorCity of Tyler Martin Heines MayorCity of Longview Jay Dean MayorCity of Marshall Ed Smith MayorDallas Area Rapid Transit Gary C. Thomas PresidentNCTCOG MPO Michael Morris Director of TransportationNETRMA Linda Ryan Thomas Chair/Chair, RailTyler MPO Heather Nick MPO DirectorLongview MPO Karen Owen MPO Director
Initial Public Outreach Update
8
Method Comment was Received Number of Comments
Web-based 64
Mailed-In 7
Online Survey 144
Total Comments Received 215
9/8/2014
5
Most Common Responses by County
9
c
c
c c
c c
10
Draft Plan : Recommended Near-Term Program
9/8/2014
6
11
Draft Plan : Recommended Mid-Term Program
12
Draft Plan : Recommended Long-Term Program
9/8/2014
7
Draft Plan : Recommended Implementation Program
13
14
Timeline of Proposed Activities
July 2013
• Advisory Committee Kick-off & Study Introduction
February 2014
• Prioritize Goals and Objectives
• Identify Potential Projects
• Members begin Initial Public Outreach
January 2014
• Discuss Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) Considerations
• Review & Finalize Public Outreach Tools
October 2013
• Develop Objectives• Identify/Review
Constraints, Features, Concerns & Future Considerations
• Discuss Public Outreach Tools
April 2014
• Members Continue Initial Public Outreach
• Conference Call to update on Outreach Activities
June 2014
• Members Complete Initial Public Outreach
• Evaluate & Prioritize Projects
• Review Summary of Public Input
September 2014
• Review Draft Corridor Plan
• Prepare for Draft Corridor Plan Public Outreach
Sept.-Oct. 2014
• Hold Open House(s)
November 2014
• Review Public Input Received at Open House(s)
• Finalize Corridor Plan
December 2014
• Presentation to Commission
• Members help spread the word that a Final Corridor Plan is available on the website
Indicates Committee MeetingWe are here:
9/8/2014
8
Stay Informed
15
Website updateswww.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
Fact SheetsEmailed to the mailing list, posted on website, available at outreach events, available at Advisory Committee member offices
Open houses or other outreach activities
Email notificationsSign up to join the mailing list on our website
Facebookwww.facebook.com/TxDOT
Twitter@TxDOT, @TxDOTDallasPIO, @TYLPIO, @TxDOTAtlanta
Questions and Comments
QUESTIONS?
Comments can also be submitted online at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
16
1
September 3, 2014
Fact Sheet
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
I‐20 provides an important east‐west connection for travel and trade in Texas. As the interstate system ages and population and trade increases, it is necessary to assess the current safety and capacity needs and plan for the future. A Corridor Assessment study has been undertaken to identify rural transportation needs along I‐20 from the Dallas Metropolitan Area to the Texas/Louisiana State Line.
September 2014
HOW TO GET AND STAY INVOLVED…
Visit our website at www.txdot.gov/inside‐txdot/projects/studies/ statewide/i20‐east‐corridor.html
The study will:
Assess current corridor conditions and identify near, mid and long‐term needs. The needs assessment will focus on addressing safety, congestion, and system preservation concerns.
Identify opportunities for addressing needs related to vehicular, freight and alternative transportation modes.
Consider funding requirements for implementation of potential improvements, including alternative/non‐traditional funding strategies.
Outline next steps for TxDOT and other transportation stakeholders to consider advancing project development activities for the corridor.
Overview
Scope of Study
2
September 3, 2014
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Fact Sheet
An integral component of this study has been working with public and private stakeholders through an Advisory Committee. The charge of the Committee is to assist TxDOT in assessing the rural transportation needs along I‐20 by providing locally focused input and recommendations. The Committee provides a valuable avenue for public outreach and input on issues that include:
Rural transportation needs along the I‐20 corridor
Local planning issues (development activities, planning/environmental features)
Opportunities for near, mid and long‐term transportation improvements
Recommendations for addressing freight and alternative transportation modes
Input on the feasibility of potential alternative/non‐traditional funding strategies
Recommendations on priorities and next steps for TxDOT and other local stakeholders to consider in advancing project development activities for the corridor
The Advisory Committee is currently comprised of individuals representing a cross‐section of elected officials and other stakeholders along the corridor. Committee members include representation from the following:
Counties (Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg, Harrison)
Cities (Balch Springs, Mesquite, Forney, Terrell, Canton, Lindale, Tyler, Longview, Marshall)
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NCTCOG, Tyler, Longview)
North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority (NETRMA)
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)
Other entities could include economic development organizations, business interests and Native American Tribes.
The Advisory Committee has met approximately every two months.
Expected study duration is about 18 months to be complete in December 2014.
Advisory Committee
Schedule
Attachment 6 Public Involvement
Opportunities Calendar
Event Dates Location
Dallas County
4th Annual Habitat Automotive Show Sept. 13‐14 1818 Rodeo Drive, Mesquite TX
Shrine Circus Sept. 19‐21 1818 Rodeo Drive, Mesquite TX
Third Annual Downtown Street Dance Sept. 20 Kaufman Street, Seagoville, TX
Buchanan Antique and Collectibles Market Sept. 20‐21 2323 Big Town Blvd, Mesquite TX
19th Annual Taste & Trade Sept. 30 1800 Rodeo Drive, Mesquite TX
Pumpkin Fest Oct. 18 403 S. Galloway, Mesquite TX
Devil's Bowl Speedway Winter Nationals Oct. 17‐18 1711 Lawson Road, Mesquite TX
The Amazing Technicolor 5k Run Oct. 25 1800 Rodeo Drive, Mesquite TX
Cowboys of Color Finals Rodeo Oct. 25 1818 Rodeo Drive, Mesquite TX
5th Annual Texas Longhorn Shootut Nov. 28‐29 1818 Rodeo Drive, Mesquite TX
Kaufman County
2nd Saturdays Sept. 13 Downtown Forney
Flights of our Fathers Fly‐In Sept. 20 Terrell Municipal Airport
Halloween Festival and Thrillvania Weekends in October 2330 County Road 138, Terrell, Texas
2nd Saturdays Oct. 11 Downtown Forney
Trail of Treats Oct. 25 Downtown Forney
2nd Saturdays Nov. 8 Downtown Forney
Van Zandt County
Yesterland Farm: Heroes Weekend Sept. 20‐21 15410 Interstate 20, Canton, TX 75103
First Monday Trade Days Oct. 2 ‐ 5 800 Flea Market Rd, Canton, TX 75103
14th Annual Autumn Stroll Oct. 11 Canton Downtown N. Buffalo St off Hwy 64
First Monday Trade Days Oct. 30 ‐ Nov. 2 800 Flea Market Rd, Canton, TX 75103
First Monday Trade Days Nov. 27‐30 800 Flea Market Rd, Canton, TX 75103
Smith County
Rose City Farmers Market every Saturday and Tuesday 7212 Old Jacksonville Hwy.
East Texas State Fair Sept. 19‐28 2112 West Front Street Tyler, TX 75702
Take Steps for Crohn's and Colitis Oct. 4 Bergfeld Park
Susan G. Komen Ride for the Cure Oct. 11 Tarrant Ranch, Bullard, TX
Rose Festival Oct. 16‐19
Fall Family Fun Festival Oct. 23 Glass Recreation Center, 501 W. 32nd, Tyler, TX
Winnsboro Wild West Days Nov. 15‐16 900 Wheeler Drive. Winnsboro, TX
Gregg County
Historic Longview Farmers Market every Saturday Corner of Cotton and High Streets, Longview, TX
T‐Bone Walker Blues Festival Sept. 13 100 Grand Blvd. Longview, TX
Mud Volleyball Tournament Sept. 20 1123 Jaycee Dr. Longview, TX
Graystone Haunted Manor Fridays and Saturdays in Octob13481 FM 968 W, Longview Texas
Howl‐o‐ween Oct. 18 2395 H.G. Mosley Parkway, Longview Texas
Harvest Festival and Livestock Show Oct. 23‐25 100 Grand Blvd. Longview, TX
Monster Dash 5k & 10k Oct. 25
Rising Out of the Thicket 5k Zombie Fun/Run Oct. 25 McWhorter Park, Longview, TX
Color Up 5k Nov. 1 100 Grand Blvd. Longview, TX
American Heart Association Hear Walk & 5k Heart Run Nov. 15 3133 Good Shepherd Way, Longview TX
Harrison County
Marshall Music Festival Sept. 12‐20 downtown Marshall
Marshall Second Saturdays Sept. 13 downtown Marshall
Fire Ant Festival mid‐October downtown Marshall
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory CommitteePublic Involvement Opportunities
Attachment 7 NCTCOG I‐20
Transportation Focus Handout
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 1 of 6
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 11:30 a.m. Tyler Rose Garden Center, Tyler, Texas
DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY
Name Organization Members Present
Lauren Trimble (alternate for Judge Clay Jenkins) Dallas CountyJudge Bruce Wood Kaufman County Commissioner Virgil Milton Jr. (alternate for Judge Rhita Koches)
Van Zandt County
Judge Joel Baker Smith CountyJudge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg CountyJudge Hugh Taylor Harrison County Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs John Clary (alternate for Mayor Robert Nelson) City of Lindale Mayor Martin Heines City of TylerKevin Feldt (alternate for Michael Morris) NCTCOG
Michael Miles (alternate for Gary C. Thomas) DART
Linda Ryan Thomas NETRMA
Celia Boswell NETRMA
Heather Nick Tyler MPO
Karen Owen Longview MPO Members Not Present
Mayor John Monaco City of Mesquite Mayor Harold Magill City of Seagoville Mayor Darren Rozell City of Forney Mayor Hal Richards City of TerrellMayor Richard Lawrence City of Canton Mayor Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall
To view the complete meeting sign‐in sheets, see Attachment 1.
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) discuss the progress of public outreach activities to date; 2) provide an update on the Amtrak study conducted in East Texas; 3) discuss emerging trends and technologies in transportation; 4) prioritize proposed projects along the corridor; 5) explain funding sources and financing strategies for proposed projects; and 6) plan for future meetings. PowerPoint presentations were utilized to provide an overview of aforementioned items during the meeting. The agenda and presentations are included as Attachment 2. Open House: The Advisory Committee meeting began with an open house featuring exhibits focusing on the following topics:
General corridor maps including planned/programmed improvement projects. Existing and future traffic, freight traffic volumes and level of service. Safety factors including frontage roads, vertical clearances and median barriers.
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 2 of 6
Crash hotspot analysis. Design‐centric interchange analysis results. Timeline of proposed activities for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study Mission Statement for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee. Examples of public outreach materials used on other TxDOT projects such as I‐69 and My35.
Welcome/Introductions: Advisory Committee Chairman Judge Bill Stoudt (Gregg County) welcomed attendees to the meeting and thanked Mayor Martin Heines, for hosting the meeting at the Tyler Rose Garden Center. Marc Williams (TxDOT), acting as the Advisory Committee Facilitator, then asked committee members to introduce themselves. Safety Briefing: Marc Williams provided a safety briefing for all meeting attendees highlighting evacuation routes from the building and locations of restrooms, fire extinguishers, and tornado shelter areas within the facility. Public Outreach Efforts: Susan Howard (TxDOT) updated Advisory Committee members on the public outreach efforts that had been conducted so far, including 19 presentations reaching out to over 400 citizens, several news articles published, links on member’s homepages to TxDOT’s official project website and comment form, 47 comments received from the TxDOT online comment form, and 237 responses to the online survey. Susan then encouraged members to continue publicizing the message of this corridor study in preparation for public outreach this fall. She followed up with members to determine if they needed any additional materials or guidance, and informed them that there were extra activity forms available if they needed to report any activities that were conducted but not included in the summary. Amtrak Study Update: Mark Werner (TxDOT) presented the findings of the East Texas Amtrak Passenger Rail Study to committee members, including background on the study and feasibility options. The line evaluated would travel from Fort Worth to Shreveport, following the TRE line through the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, and stopping in Fort Worth, Centreport, Dallas, Forney, Wills Point, Mineola, Longview, Marshall and terminating in Shreveport. Options were evaluated for both one round trip and two round trips per day. Mark then provided information on the revenue and operations costs, including projected yearly riders, revenue, operations cost and needed subsidy to provide the service. He also included the cost of the capitalization and infrastructure. He concluded his presentation mentioning that TxDOT does not have any available funds at this time to dedicate to this project. He also included a list of next steps that would need to take place for the project to move forward including needed approval and support by the state, not just Amtrak funded service, identification of funding sources and approval of infrastructure changes by Union Pacific
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 3 of 6
Railroad. Members asked the estimated travel time along the line, which Mark responded would be about four and a half hours from end to end. This would make the rail service competitive with travel time for bus service along I‐20, but make it slower than current travel time by private vehicle. Members also asked if this study was looking at using existing tracks. Mark clarified that it was looking at existing tracks, but there had been a separate study about improving infrastructure and possible high‐speed service, at an estimated cost of $1 billion. Emerging Trends and Technologies in Transportation: Michael Sexton (Jacobs) went through a presentation explaining several different options for emerging trends and new technologies in the transportation industry that could be considered as part of this corridor study and planning for the future. Included in the presentation were traditional passenger service options including passenger rail and bus services; up‐and‐coming options including vehicle and ride sharing; smart travel technologies including smart phone applications (apps) to compare travel options and better plan trips; electric vehicles and charging stations; smart vehicles and their needs; bicycle and pedestrian options including bicycle sharing; and improvements to freight technologies. In addition, new technologies are being created for roadway improvements, including solar‐powered highway striping and the use of piezoelectric energy to produce electricity for overhead lights and interactive signage. He explained to the committee members that although some of these options may be new or foreign concepts to them now, considerations for future needs and demands should be part of planning for the future of the corridor. For this particular study, he emphasized that certain options may be more feasible than others along the corridor and different from those appropriate for arterial or local streets. Identifying options that were suitable for each of those areas could attract private sector transit systems, such as ride‐share services, to the area as well. Marc Williams added that some of the options may seem unusual, but many have been driven by limited finances and an inability to build and finance highway transportation infrastructure the same way we have in the past. He emphasized that technology is changing the transportation landscape and driverless cars could be a much more significant reality within the timeline of this study. Members inquired about the capacity implications of adding a driverless car exclusive lane, and study staff explained it could significantly increase the capacity of the highway from one additional lane. As driverless cars do not need the same amount of headway per vehicle as passenger‐driven cars, the capacity limit of a driverless car exclusive lane is nearly double that of a standard lane. He asked members if there were elements they felt needed to be included in this report to please offer up your ideas and thoughts. Committee members emphasized the importance of communicating with each other as to what they are all doing locally to provide a more regional picture of transportation options along the corridor. They also provided success stories of technology changes they have seen, such as Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s (DART) GoPass app.
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 4 of 6
Update on NCTCOG Meeting: Judge Bruce Wood (Kaufman County) provided members with an update on the outcome of the meeting Michael Miles (NCTCOG) had suggested between Kaufman County and Dallas County to look at possible projects that could happen in conjunction with NCTCOG’s current funding. Judge Wood provided a handout to all committee members (included in Attachment 3) identifying several projects and suggestions NCTCOG has already identified, as well as asking for an inventory of project needs and assistance in developing an action plan to get projects moving. Included in the packet was a list of past, current and future projects identified in the regions as well. Project Prioritization Activity: Michael Sexton explained the prioritization activity, describing the types of projects that were identified by the members at the February Committee meeting in Mesquite, including ramp and interchange improvements, new frontage road construction, existing frontage road reconstruction, and expanding main lane capacity. The projects were identified based on the Advisory Committee input, technical analysis by staff, and public comments received to date. The activity used in this meeting consisted of two rounds (initial round and final round). Each round of prioritization was further divided into two levels focusing on general strategies and individual projects. The first level of the initial round of prioritization invited members to independently prioritize generalized strategies on individual forms. After each of the members turned in their forms, the results were tabulated and revealed an overall ranking of improvement concepts as shown below:
1. Ramps improvements. 2. Frontage roads 3. Added capacity 4. Emerging trends and technologies 5. Other improvement types
The particular results of each geographic section are included in Attachment 4. For Level 2 of the initial round of prioritization, Committee members were then split into groups based on eastern, central and western sections of the corridor to prioritize specific projects. Each of the three groups had three different maps with the identified projects categorized as ramp and interchange improvements, frontage road construction and improvements, as well as added capacity on main lanes. Each committee member was handed six dot stickers to place on the maps marking projects they thought needed to be high priority. Committee members representing the western section of the corridor were consistent in their responses from both sections of the activity, giving higher preference to ramp improvement projects followed by frontage road construction or improvements. Preferences for capacity improvements were included but were not as uniformly localized as the previous two categories. The central section of the corridor manifested similar preferences to the western section in terms of
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 5 of 6
strategic priorities, focusing on ramp improvement projects followed by frontage road construction or improvements. However while prioritizing specific projects members chose construction of frontage roads above addition of capacity to the main lanes or ramp improvements. Representatives of the eastern section ranked strategies differently than the other sections of the corridor, prioritizing added capacity over ramps improvements and frontage road projects, respectively. Level 2 of the activity resulted in higher preference for frontage road projects followed by additional main lanes and ramp and interchange improvements. The members of the east section did mention that their priority was still additional capacity along with some frontage roads in Gregg County and near Marshall. Detailed results for both sections of the exercise can be found in attachment 4.
The final round of the activity had members come back together as a group to discuss findings Members were shown the results of the initial round of prioritization for further review and then asked if they would like to change their original preferences based on the findings of the group as a whole. All members declined and chose to keep their responses the same as the initial round, thus voiding the need for any additional rounds of discussion. Funding Sources and Financing Projects: Marc Williams presented information to the committee members on funding sources and financing for the projects outlined. He provided the estimated costs of desired projects identified by the committee, coming to a grand total of over $3 billion in improvement costs. Marc then explained the TxDOT Unified Transportation Program (UTP) used to plan funding for identified projects over the next 10 years. Most of the district funding sources have already been allocated focusing on preventative maintenance and rehabilitation, with a majority going to the Dallas District. In addition to the UTP, Marc outlined other funding sources including the area MPOs and local funding sources. He also provided information on possible future funding sources from the federal, state and local levels. From a federal perspective, this could include tolling of existing interstates and use of business taxes to increase the transportation budget. From the State level, Proposition One would reallocate taxes from oil and gas to add to transportation funding and tolling options. From a local level, Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) could be used to fund projects as well as adjusting the vehicle registration fee, which has already been done in four counties throughout the state, including . Marc encouraged members to continue identifying priorities and work on gaining local support for projects to be ready if and when funding becomes available. Committee members could also aid the process in identifying opportunities for right‐of‐way donations and acquisitions if needed. A committee member raised a question regarding the amount of the current gas tax that is being allocated to the Department of Public Safety, to which Marc clarified is currently $600 million. Another member asked for clarification on where the $5 billion budget for transportation services
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 6 of 6
comes from. Marc explained that the conclusion of the TTP 2040 committee identified it would take $3 billion to maintain existing road conditions; $1 billion to maintain the current level of service; and $1 billion to meet needs of the growing energy sector in Texas. A third committee member asked Marc to explain how projects such as I‐35 received their funding. Marc mentioned that the state legislature earmarked $600 million to go towards the widening of I‐35 between Taylor and Hillsboro as the main source of funding. Additional funding for projects in the area came from the toll revenue created by State Highway 130. In addition, TxDOT has been working with the local entities along the route for right of way contributions and other needs. Future Meetings: Marc Williams thanked members for their participation in the Advisory Committee meetings and activities. He then discussed that the next Advisory Committee meeting in August 2014 would be held in the City of Balch Springs. Prior to the next meeting, the consultant team will be distributing the draft report for committee member’s review and discussion at the next meeting. Additionally, the committee will plan the public outreach efforts to take place this fall at the next meeting. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:
Schedule August meeting in Balch Springs Send draft report to committee members before August meeting
Attachments:
1. Advisory Committee Sign‐In Sheets 2. Meeting Agenda and Presentations 3. NCTCOG Update Handout 4. Project Prioritization Activity Responses and Boards
Meeting Staff: Marc Williams, Caroline Love, Susan Howard, Roger Beall, Cary Karnstadt, Lindsey Kimmitt, Mark Werner (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia, Chris Lazaro, Nair Barrios, June San Miguel, Sam Rojas (Jacobs) Aimee Vance and Jenny Paredes (K Strategies)
Attachment 1 Advisory Committee Meeting Sign-‐In
Sheets
Attachment 2 Meeting Agenda and
Presentations
I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 12:00 PM – 4:00 PM
Tyler Rose Museum and Gift Shop 420 Rose Park Dr., Tyler Texas 75702
Call-in: 866-637-1408 Conference Code: 312 746 6422#
Meeting #5 – Agenda
11:45 to 12:00 PM Registration & Open House 12:00 – 12:10 PM Welcome & Introductions Judge Bill Stoudt, Gregg County
Safety Briefing Marc Williams, TxDOT 12:10 – 12:40 PM Public Outreach Efforts Susan Howard, TxDOT 12:40 Working Lunch 12:50 – 1:10 PM Amtrak Study Update Mark Werner, TxDOT 1:10 – 1:40 PM Emerging Trends and Technologies in Transportation Michael Sexton, Jacobs 1:40 – 2:40 PM Project Prioritization – Initial Round Michael Sexton, Jacobs
Identified Projects Summary of Evaluation Prioritization - Initial
2:40 – 2:50 PM Break 2:50 – 3:05 PM Funding Sources and Financing Projects Marc Williams, TxDOT 3:05 – 3:50 PM Project Prioritization – Final Round Michael Sexton, Jacobs
Results of Initial Prioritization Committee Discussion Prioritization - Final
3:50 PM Next Steps and Closing Comments Marc Williams, TxDOT 4:00 PM Adjourn
&
Public Outreach Public Outreach
PUBLIC OUTREACH I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Public Outreach
Advisory Committee Goals
2
•! Involve Local Communities •! Consider Current and Future Multimodal
Transportation Needs •! Improve Safety •! Reduce Congestion and Enhance Mobility for
Travelers and Freight •! Enhance Air Quality
&
&
Public Outreach
Public Outreach Activities by Committee Members
3
Member Activity Forms Returned
Total Audience Reach
Balch Springs 5 153
Gregg County 1 N/A
(newspaper article)
Harrison County 5 104
Longview MPO 5 61
Smith County 1 30
Tyler MPO 4 79
•! Advisory Committee members have conducted 19 presentations including:
•! Chambers of Commerce •! City Council meetings •! Rotary clubs •! Lions clubs •! Homeowners Associations •! MPO public meetings
•! Reached out to over 400 people
Public Outreach
Other Activities
4
•! Tyler Morning Telegraph •!Marshall News Messenger •!KETK NBC – Tyler •! Longview News Journal
•!Gregg County •!Harrison County •! Lindale •!Mesquite •!NETRMA •! Smith County
In the News Website Links on Homepages
&
Public Outreach
Comments from Website
5
County Comments Received
Cherokee 1
Dallas 1
Denton 1
Gregg 13
Harrison 2
Henderson 1
Rusk 1
Shelby 1
Smith 19
Van Zandt 3
None listed 4
47 public comments have been received through the project page
Public Outreach
Comment Themes
6
•! Passenger and freight rail service
Dallas County
•! No comments received.
Kaufman County
•! Truck only lane •! Road surface repair •! Add rest areas
Van Zandt County
•! Add additional lanes •! Update entrance/exit
ramps
•! Truck only lane
Smith County
•! Add additional lanes •! Truck only lane •! Safety in wet road
conditions
Gregg County
•! Continuous frontage roads
•! Keep median barriers
Harrison County
&
&
Public Outreach
254 Responses to the public survey have been received
Online Public Survey
7
Public Outreach
Public Priorities (survey responses)
8
Multimodal Transportation
&
&
Public Outreach
Greatest Need for Improvement (survey responses)
9
Public Outreach
Questions?
10
&
June 2014 June 2014
EAST TEXAS PASSENGER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY I-20 Advisory Committee Meeting
June 2014 June 2014
EAST TEXAS PASSENGER FEASIBILITY STUDY
!!Study Findings
&
&
June 2014
Study Area
3
June 2014
East Texas Passenger Rail
!! The Texas Department of Transportation contracted with the National Railroad Passenger Rail Corporation (Amtrak) in November 2012 to conduct a feasibility and financial evaluation of adding two round trip passenger trains between Fort Worth and Shreveport/Bossier City, LA
!! Study was funded through a federal congressional appropriation at a cost of $140,000.
!! The study looked at two scenarios –! Scenario 1 – One roundtrip train per day departing Fort Worth ITC at 8:55 AM and
returning from Shreveport at 5:45 PM –! Scenario 2 – Two roundtrip trains per day with two trains departing Fort Worth at
8:55 AM and 5:45 PM and two trains departing Shreveport at 6:30 AM and 5:45 PM.
–! Station stops at Fort Worth, Centre Point, Dallas, Forney, Wills Point, Mineola, Longview, Mineola and Shreveport/Bossier City, LA. –! Determined operation and infrastructure cost and ridership and revenue
estimates.
4
&
June 2014
Proposed Schedule
!"#$%&"#$'()'#*+*,"#$%-#",".*/%)0'*/12*%34"%5"16/%3#7,.%
5*8/%9"46% && && && && && && && && 5*8/%:,%
9872;% 9872;% %% <72*8=*% %% %%%)$8>"6%)$",.% %% %% 9872;% 9872;%
?@??%-<% )*++&,-&&& .&/0& !"#$%&"#$'%A3BC%3D% ,1& && EF@E?%-<% ##*..&,-&
G@EG%-<% 2*#2&,-&&& #$&,1&
B*6$*#,"#$C%3D%
/0& && H@IG%-<% #.*(#&,-&
%G@EH%-<% 2*''&,-&&& && /0& ,1& && H@IJ%-<% #.*')&,-&
G@IG%-<% 2*()&,-&&& ((&,1&
98228.C%3D%
/0& && H@KL%-<% #.*#'&,-&
G@?E%-<% 2*%(&,-&&& && /0& ,1& && H@KK%-<% #.*.$&,-&
L@KJ%-<% #.*#+&,-&&& +$&,1&
!"#6*;C%3D%
/0& && M@JL%-<% 2*''&,-&
L@KG%-<% #.*#)&,-&&& && /0& ,1& && M@JI%-<% 2*#2&,-&
L@?E%-<% #.*%(&,-&&& )%&,1&
&722.%-"76$C%3D%
/0& && M@FH%-<% )*+%&,-&
L@?I%-<% #.*%!&,-&&& && /0& ,1& && M@FG%-<% )*+#&,-&
M@JE%-<% ##*#(&,-&&& ##+&,1&
<76*"28C%3D%
/0& && L@JH%-<% )*'%&,-&
M@JI%-<% ##*#!&,-&&& && /0& ,1& && L@JG%-<% )*'#&,-&
H@EM%-<% EK@FF%-<%&& #!#&,1&
N"6=+7*4C%3D%
/0& && G@?K%-<% $*($&,-&
H@KE%-<% EK@FJ%-<%&& && /0& ,1& && G@IM%-<% $*(%&,-&
H@IG%-<% EK@KM%-<%&& #)+&,1&
<8#.'822C%3D%%
/0& && G@KI%-<% $*.2&,-&
H@IH%-<% EK@JE%-<%&& && /0& ,1& && G@KE%-<% $*.!&,-&
EF@JJ%-<% E@KJ%-<%&& ''.&,1& %%%)'#*+*,"#$C%NO% /0& && ?@I?%-<% !*(.&,-&
5
June 2014
Study Results
P8.$%3*Q8.%-8..*6=*#%5872%)$1/;%
%5*+*61*%86/%R,*#8>"6%B".$.%
3#7,.% E%5"16/%3#7,% K%5"16/%3#7,.%
S*8#2;%57/*#.% HICFFF% EKICFFF%
5*+*61*% TECJKLCFFF%% TECL?FCFFF%%
R,*#8>"6%0".$.% THC?H?CFFF%% TE?CKHMCFFF%%
)1U.7/;% TMCKGMCFFF%% TEJC?IMCFFF%%
6
B8,7$827V8>"6%W%A6X#8.$#10$1#*%B".$.%
E%5"16/%3#7,% TGLCJFFCFFF%%
K%5"16/%3#7,.% TMHCIFFCFFF%%
&
&
June 2014
Where do we go from here?
!!Short distance interstate Amtrak routes are required to be supported by the states in which they operate. Only long distance Amtrak routes like the Texas Eagle are supported solely by Amtrak.
!! TxDOT currently supports the Heartland Flyer route equally with Oklahoma. TxDOT’s yearly subsidy for the Flyer Has gone from just under $2M to $3.6M since the enactment of PRIIA 209 legislation. TxDOT must request funding each legislative session to continue to support this service.
!! TxDOT does not currently have a dedicated funding source for rail projects so a funding source would need to be found to make the infrastructure improvements identified in the report.
!! In addition the infrastructure improvements would need to be reviewed and approved by Union Pacific Railroad.
7
June 2014
Questions
Questions?
8
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies Emerging Trends and Technologies Emerging Trends and Technologies
I-20 EAST TEXAS Emerging and Future Transportation Technologies
DRAFT
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Table of Contents
2
8-10
11-12
13-16
17-19
20-23
3-7
24-25
Passenger Services
Vehicle and Ride Sharing
Smart Travel Technologies
Electric & Smart Vehicles
Bicycle and Pedestrian Technologies
Freight Technologies
Technologies in the Future
Passenger Services 1
Vehicle and Ride Sharing 2
Smart Travel Technologies 3
Electric & Smart Vehicles 4
Bicycle and Pedestrian Technologies 5
Freight Technologies 6
Technologies in the Future 7
26-29 Technologies in Context Technologies in Context 8
&
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Passenger Services
3
Emerging Trends and Technologies 4
Passenger Rail Systems
&
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies 5
Passenger Rail Studies
Emerging Trends and Technologies 6
Passenger Services In Texas
&
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies 7
According to a TTI report, half of Megabus riders are college students and young professionals between 18 and 30 years old. Minimal terminal infrastructure – usually just a parking lot
Greyhound receives limited federal subsidies
to maintain lower-density routes
Intercity Bus Service
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Vehicle & Ride Sharing
8
&
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies 9
More than 300 vehicles available in Austin
Vehicles available in: •! Austin •! Dallas •! Fort Worth •! Houston •! San Antonio •! San Marcos •! Waco
Car Sharing
Emerging Trends and Technologies 10
Peer-to-Peer Car & Ride Sharing
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Smart Travel Technologies
11
Emerging Trends and Technologies 12
Transit Planning Technology
&
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Electric Vehicles
13
Emerging Trends and Technologies 14
Electric Vehicles
&
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Smart Vehicles
15
Emerging Trends and Technologies 16
Autonomous Vehicles
Sensor Telemetry
&
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Bicycle & Pedestrian Technologies
17
Emerging Trends and Technologies 18
Pedestrian & Bicycle Treatments
&
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies 19
B-Cycle – Available in 22 cities including Austin, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio
Social Bicycles – Available in 9 North American cities Scoot – Available in San Francisco
Bike Sharing
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Freight Technologies
20
&
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies 21
Hybrid Diesel-Electric Truck – Manufactured by Freightliner Freight Shuttle System – Proposed in several locations in Texas and the Nation
eHighway Concept – Line-powered electric trucks being piloted by Siemens
Freight Vehicle Technology
Emerging Trends and Technologies 22
Compact Cargo Vans
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies 23
Short-Distance Delivery Vehicles
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Transportation in the Future
24
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies 25
EV Priority Lane
Photo-luminescent Lane Markings Piezoelectric Energy
Solar Highway
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Technologies in Context
26
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies 27
I-20 Freeway Corridor
Art
eria
l Str
eet
Collector/Local Street
Emerging Trends and Technologies 28
I-20 Freeway Corridor
Art
eria
l Str
eet
Collector/Local Street
&
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies 29
I-20 Freeway Corridor
Art
eria
l Str
eet
Collector/Local Street
Emerging Trends and Technologies 30
I-20 Freeway Corridor
Art
eria
l Str
eet
Collector/Local Street
&
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Questions
31
&
Project Prioritization Project Prioritization
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee June 11, 2014
Project Prioritization
Table of Contents
2
4
5
6
7-9
10
3
11
Identified Projects
Prioritization
Initial Round – Level 1
Initial Round – Level 2
Final Round
Questions
Emerging Trends and Technologies
Identified Projects 1
Emerging Trends and Technologies 2
Prioritization 3
Initial Round – Level 1 4
Initial Round – Level 2 5
Final Round 6
Questions 7
&
Project Prioritization
Identified Projects
3
!! Projects were identified by the Advisory Committee Members during the February 2014 Committee Meeting in Mesquite.
!! Additional projects based on technical analysis by staff (Districts & Consultants).
!! Identified projects include: •! Ramp/Interchange Improvements •! Frontage Road Improvements (including New frontage roads) •! Additional Mainlanes to I-20
Project Prioritization 4
I-20 Freeway Corridor
Art
eria
l Str
eet
Collector/Local Street
Emerging Trends and Technologies
&
&
Project Prioritization
Prioritization
5
Initial Round
Level 1 Generalized Improvement
Concepts
Level 2 Specific Identified
Projects
Final Round
Level 1 Generalized Improvement
Concepts
Level 2 Specific Identified
Projects
Committee Discussion on Initial
Round Results
Project Prioritization
Initial Round – Level 1 – Generalized Improvement Concepts
6
1 = Highest Priority 4 = Lowest Priority
2
1
3
Example Rating
4 Wild Flowers
&
&
Project Prioritization 7
Initial Round – Level 2 – Specific Identified Projects
I-20 Corridor Organized into: •! West (Dallas and Kaufman Counties) •! Central (Van Zandt and Smith Counties) •! East (Gregg and Harrison Counties)
Projects Grouped into: •! Ramp and Interchange Improvements •! Added Capacity (one main lane in each direction) •! Frontage Road Improvements (including new
frontage roads)
Project Prioritization 8
Initial Round – Level 2 – Specific Identified Projects
Project List
Technical Score is a composite rating for each project. Detailed ratings are provided in the 11X17 sheets within each packet. Higher technical score suggests more need for the project. Scores 55+ have been highlighted in
red, and between 50 and 54 are highlighted in orange.
&
&
Project Prioritization 9
Initial Round – Level 2 – Specific Identified Projects
Project Prioritization
Final Round
10
•! Following Initial Round, staff will summarize the results of the prioritization during the break and Funding Discussion
•! Results will then be presented to the Committee prior to the Final Round prioritization.
•! Committee Discussion of the Initial Round results before conducting Final Round Prioritization
•! Final Round Prioritization results will be summarized after the meeting and emailed to the Committee Members
&
Project Prioritization
Questions?
11
Project Prioritization
Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 1
12
Project Type RANK Average Priority
Emerging Trends and Technologies
4 3.60
Ramps and Interchanges
1 1.73
Frontage Roads 2 2.20
Additional I-20 Capacity
3 2.60
Other Improvement Types
5 4.67
&
Project Prioritization
Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2
13
38
35
20
Project Specific Priorities
Ramps and Interchanges
Frontage Roads
Additional I-20 Capacity
Project Prioritization 14
Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2 - West
4
4 3
5
3
&
&
Project Prioritization 15
Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2 - Central
7
8
7
Project Prioritization 16
Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2 - East
4
3 3
&
Project Prioritization
Discussion
17
&
Funding Sources and Financing Projects Funding Sources and Financing Projects
FUNDING SOURCES & FINANCING PROJECTS I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee June 11, 2014
Funding Sources and Financing Projects
Table of Contents
2
4-7
8
9-11
12
45-41
3
52-55
Current Estimate of all Improvements Identified along I-20
Unified Transportation Plan
Local Funding
Funding Possibilities
Strategies and Next Steps for I-20
Maps
Color Scheme and Useful Objects
Current Estimate of all Improvements Identified along I-20 1
Unified Transportation Plan 2
Local Funding 3
Funding Possibilities 4
Strategies and Next Steps for I-20 5
6
7
&
&
Funding Sources and Financing Projects
Current Estimate of All Improvements Identified along I-20
3
Type of Improvement Construction Cost Additional Main Lanes $ 1,200,200,000 Ramps and Interchanges $ 51,500,000 Bridges $ 19,100,000 Pavement Rehabilitation $ 1,281,600,000 Frontage Roads $ 531,400,000 Other $ 4,800,000 Grand Total $ 3,088,600,000
Funding Sources and Financing Projects
Unified Transportation Plan (2014-2023)
4
•! TxDOT’s 10-year plan to guide transportation development •! Required by the Texas Administrative Code (TAC, Section 16.105) •! Approved each year by the Texas Transportation Commission
before August 31
•! Includes projects involving highways, aviation, public transportation, and state and coastal waterways
!"#$"#%&
(&
Funding Sources and Financing Projects
Summary of UTP Funding
5
Historic Future
$0
$1,000,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$3,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000
$5,000,000,000
$6,000,000,000
$7,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
$9,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
Fu
nd
ing
Lev
el
Fiscal Year
Unified Transportation Program Statewide Funding FY 2004 - 2023
Issues: •! Historic funding has been
unpredictable. •! Clearly and systematically account
and plan for unpredictability •! Respond to performance based
planning requirements of MAP-21
Funding Sources and Financing Projects
District Funding Sources
6
Category Description Dallas Tyler Atlanta Total
1 Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation 362.20 117.38 117.97 597.55
2 Metro and Urban Area Corridor Projects ! 37.67 ! 37.67
3 Non-traditionally Funded Projects 144.75 ! ! 144.75
4 Statewide Connectivity Projects ! ! !
5 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ! ! !
6 Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation* ! ! !
7 Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation ! ! !
8 Safety* ! ! !
9 Transportation Enhancements ! ! !
10 Supplemental Transportation Projects 9.94 5.85 ! 15.79
11 District Discretionary 25.00 25.00 25.00 75.00
12 Strategic Priority 472.13 5.00 ! 477.13
Local 306.68 36.46 2.65 345.79
Total 1,320.70 227.36 145.62 1,693.68
Unified Transportation Plan 2014-2023 (in Millions of Dollars)
* Included in the Statewide Program Funding
&
Funding Sources and Financing Projects
MPO Funding Sources
7
Category Description NCTCOG Tyler Longview Total
1 Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation
2 Metro and Urban Area Corridor Projects 299.20 21.17 16.5 336.87
3 Non-traditionally Funded Projects 646.50
4 Statewide Connectivity Projects
5 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 736.55
6 Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation*
7 Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation 929.71
8 Safety*
9 Transportation Enhancements 95.21
10 Supplemental Transportation Projects
11 District Discretionary
12 Strategic Priority 44.19
12 STP-MM 3.76
Local 939.06
Total 3,694.18 21.17 16.50 3,731.85
Unified Transportation Plan 2014-2023 (in Millions of Dollars)
* Included in the Statewide Program Funding
Funding Sources and Financing Projects
Local Funding
8
•! Cities along the I-20 East Texas Corridor have an annual budget of approximately $460 Million. However, transportation is identified as a substantial amount in that budget.
•! The five counties outside the Dallas Metro area have an annual budget of about $200 Million.
&
&
Funding Sources and Financing Projects
Funding Possibilities - Federal
9
Upcoming Legislation to Fund Transportation May Include: •! Tolling of existing interstates •! Use of business taxes to increase transportation
funding, or •! Steady/Lower Transportation Funding Levels
Funding Sources and Financing Projects
Funding Possibilities - State
10
Proposition One •! Proposition One in November 2014 •! Could add up to $1.2 billion in Transportation Funding Success of Proposition One could result in further proposals to increase transportation fund •! Registration Fees •! Motor Fuels Tax Increase Tolling / Public Private Partnership
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-06/texas-lawmakers-seek-road-fund-boost-to-accomodate-growth.html
&
Funding Sources and Financing Projects
Funding Possibilities - Local
11
•! Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZ) •! Vehicle Registration Fee
•! Bexar County (~$12M annually) •! El Paso County (~$6M annually) •! Hidalgo County (~$4M annually) •! Webb County (~$2M annually)
•! Other Local/Private Contributions
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/09/04/legislature-gave-three-counties-power-raise-car-fe/
Funding Sources and Financing Projects
Strategies & Next Steps for I-20
12
•! Identify Priorities •! Obtain Local Support
•! Create Partnerships •! Obtain Public Input •! Local Funding for Non-mobility Projects like Frontage
Roads •! Advance Priorities through Project Development
Process •! Identify Opportunities for Right-of-way Donations/
Acquisitions •! Be Ready for Future Funding Opportunities
&
&
Funding Sources and Financing Projects
Questions?
13
&
&
Meeting #5
June 11, 2014
I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Status of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
July 2013 •! Advisory
Committee Kick-off & Study Introduction
February 2014 •! Prioritize Goals
and Objectives •! Identify Potential
Projects •! Members begin
Initial Public Outreach
January 2014 •! Discuss
Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) Considerations
•! Review & Finalize Public Outreach Tools
October 2013 •! Develop Objectives •! Identify/Review
Constraints, Features, Concerns & Future Considerations
•! Discuss Public Outreach Tools
April 2014 •! Members
Continue Initial Public Outreach
•! Conference Call to update on Outreach Activities
June 2014 •! Members
Complete Initial Public Outreach
•! Evaluate & Prioritize Projects
•! Review Summary of Public Input
August 2014 •! Review Draft
Corridor Plan •! Prepare for Draft
Corridor Plan Public Outreach
Sept.-Oct. 2014 •! Hold Open
House(s)
November 2014 •! Review Public
Input Received at Open House(s)
•! Finalize Corridor Plan
December 2014
•! Presentation to Commission
•! Members help spread the word that a Final Corridor Plan is available on the website
Indicates Committee Meeting We are here:
Attachment 3 NCTCOG Update
Handout
Attachment 4
Breakout Activity Responses and
Boards
Member Entity CountyEmerging Trends and Technologies
Ramps and Interchanges
Frontage RoadsAdditional I‐20
CapacityOther Details of Other Priority
1 Dallas County Dallas 4 1 2 3 2 Barriers in medians
2 NCTCOG Dallas 5 1 2 4 3 Cross over prevention barriers3 DART Dallas 1 4 3 2 5
4 Dallas County Dallas 4 1 2 3 5 Lighting and concrete barrier5 Kaufman County Kaufman 4 2 1 3 5
6 Van Zandt County Van Zandt 4 2 1 3 5 Truck lane. 7 NETRMA Van Zandt 4 1 2 3 5 Passenger rail.8 Smith County Smith 4 2 3 1 5
9 Tyler MPO Smith 4 1 2 3 5
10 Lindale Smith 4 1 2 3 5 Comment regarding ramps and interchanges: I‐20 at US 6911 Tyler City Smith 4 1 2 3 5
12 Gregg County Gregg 3 2 4 1 5
13 Longview MPO Gregg 4 2 3 1 5
14 Harrison County Harrison 4 3 1 2 5
15 NETRMA Harrison 1 2 3 4 5 Alternate routes posted for traffic tie‐ups; through electric signs, or smart phones?1617181920212223
3.60 1.73 2.20 2.60 4.67 4 1 2 3 5
West Average Priority 3.60 1.80 2.00 3.00 4.00 Rank 4 1 2 3 5
Central Average Priority 4.00 1.33 2.00 2.67 5.00 Rank 4 1 2 3 5
East Average Priority 3.00 2.25 2.75 2.00 5.00 Rank 4 2 3 1 5
Average PriorityRank
Round 1 ‐ Level 1 Prioritization Summary
I‐20 Advisory Committee Meeting ‐ June 11, 2014
Project Prioritization 14
Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2 - West
1
2 1
2
5
4
43
3
12
These are preliminary priority recommendations based on the June 11, 2014 Advisory Committee meeting, and are subject to change. Public outreach will be conducted before development of final recommendations.
New frontage road from FM 741 to SH 557
Interchange Improvement at I-20 and Loop 635
2
Ramp Reversal Beltline Rd to
Loop 635
InterchangeFM 2578
Project Prioritization 15
Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2 - Central
1
1
1 1 11
12
7
7
2
81
1These are preliminary priority recommendations based on the June 11, 2014 Advisory Committee meeting, and are subject to change. Public outreach will be conducted before development of final recommendations.
1
Project Prioritization 16
Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2 - East
These are preliminary priority recommendations based on the June 11, 2014 Advisory Committee meeting, and are subject to change.Public outreach will be conducted before development of final recommendations.
3
2
3
4
1 11
1
1
1
1
12
2
1
1
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting April 17 and 24, 2014 1 of 6
I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting
Thursday, April 17, 2014, 10:00 a.m. and Thursday, April 24, 2014, 10:00 a.m.
Conference Call FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
Name Organization
Members Present on April 17 Conference Call Heather Nick, Director Tyler MPO Judge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg County Judge Bruce Wood Kaufman County Michael Miles (alternate for Gary C. Thomas) DART Michael Morris NCTCOG Mike Sims (alternate for Mayor Hal Richards) City of Terrell
Members Present on April 24 Conference Call Carmen Gardner (alternate for Judge Joel Baker) Smith County Judge Hugh Taylor Harrison County Karen Owen Longview MPO Kevin Feldt (alternate for Michael Morris) NCTCOG Lauren Trimble (alternate for Judge Clay Jenkins) Dallas County Mayor John Monaco City of Mesquite
Members Not Present on Conference Calls Celia Boswell NETRMA Judge Rhita Koches Van Zandt County Linda Ryan Thomas NETRMA Mark McDaniel Tyler MPO Martin Heines City of Tyler Mayor Darren Rozell City of Forney Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall Mayor Harold Magill City of Seagoville Mayor Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor Richard Lawrence City of Canton Mayor Robert Nelson City of Lindale
To view the complete meeting sign-in sheets, see Attachment 1. Purpose: The purpose of the two conference call meetings was to: 1) provide members with an update on public outreach for the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study progress; 2) recap public outreach activities members have been leading; 3) discuss the draft public outreach survey; and 4) plan for future meetings. An agenda was emailed out to all meeting participants prior to the conference calls, and is included in Attachment 2. Welcome/Introductions: Caroline Love and Roger Beall (TxDOT) welcomed attendees to the conference call and thanked members for participating. Members then announced their participation on the call.
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting April 17 and 24, 2014 2 of 6
Update on Public Outreach: Caroline Love and Roger Beall (TxDOT) provided members with an update on public outreach activities that have been conducted so far, including a summary of comments received from the online comment form on the project website with data on what counties the comments had been coming from. A synopsis was provided of the six activity reports received back from Balch Springs and Harrison County, tracking public outreach to approximately 200 people. In addition, information was provided on events the project team is aware have taken place but have not had activity reports returned, including presentations conducted by Smith and Gregg counties, Tyler and Longview MPOs and NETRMA. Members were also notified that several members have added a link to their websites and shared information on the project on their social media pages. Questions were raised about the creation of a project-specific Twitter and Facebook account. TxDOT will be sharing information on their existing district pages rather than creating project-specific pages for the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study. A request was made for each of the TxDOT district Facebook and Twitter accounts to post a link to the online comment form and project website so members can retweet and share the information easily. A member suggested arranging a meeting between Dallas and Kaufman counties as well as NCTCOG to discuss projects that are currently in the works along the I-20 corridor. Member Update on Public Outreach: Advisory committee members were asked to give a brief update on any activities that had not already been mentioned in the public outreach recap. Heather Nick (Tyler MPO) mentioned that they have held several open houses related to their master transportation plan and have included information about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study in those meetings. In addition, they held an open house on Tuesday, April 22 solely to discuss the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study in Smith County. The Tyler MPO has also held presentations for the Technical Advisory Committee and the local chamber of commerce. Judge Stoudt (Gregg County) said that two front-page articles had run in Longview about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study with information on reaching the project website. He foresees more comments to be received from Gregg County due to this publicity. Gregg County has also held a presentation for the local chamber of commerce. Carmen Gardner (Smith County) mentioned that Judge Baker had conducted a presentation to the local chamber of commerce. Karen Owen (Longview MPO) brought up that they have five upcoming presentations in their area. Mayor Monaco (Mesquite) asked if discussions of passenger rail would be incorporated into this study, or whether it would focus mainly on highway improvements. Roger Beall mentioned that TxDOT’s rail division would be providing an update on the AMTRAK study currently taking place looking onto
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting April 17 and 24, 2014 3 of 6
options along this corridor. The questions in the public survey could be tweaked to reflect inclusion of passenger rail. Roger then mentioned that if the members need any additional materials or support for continued public outreach efforts to please ask the study team. Draft Public Input Survey: Susan Howard (TxDOT) opened the discussion of the newest public outreach tool by asking members to discuss the public input survey the study team had sent out. Members mentioned the following comments:
• Inclusion of passenger rail wording • Rewording of question 5, item G regarding evaluation of passenger service options • Separation of “adjust speed limits to be higher and lower” into two questions
Susan asked for members to submit any additional comments to the survey by the close of business on April 25. The survey instrument would then be updated based on their suggestions and linked to the project website for use. She informed members that the survey would remain active until May 23 (extended to June 4) and would be sent out on the TxDOT district social media pages for the members to share as well. May/June Advisory Committee Meeting: Members were informed that the next Advisory Committee meeting would be held in Tyler, Texas at the Tyler Rose Garden. They were given the possible dates of May 27, June 2, 9, 10, 11 or 12. Caroline will be sending out an email and Doodle Poll to help gauge preferences on dates. Judge Wood suggested not using May 27, as it is immediately following Memorial Day. Judge Jenkins is unavailable on June 10 or 12. Judge Baker is unavailable on the 10. The MPOs will be meeting in Corpus Christi the week of June 2. Judge Taylor mentioned that a meeting scheduled for June 9 would have to be scheduled later in the afternoon. Late Summer Advisory Committee Meeting: An announcement was made regarding the next meeting to be scheduled for late summer in either July or August. Members were asked to brainstorm a possible location that we have not used. A Doodle Poll will be sent out with possible dates for this meeting as well. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:
• Post link to comment form on TxDOT district social media pages • Update public outreach survey • Send poll for meeting dates
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting April 17 and 24, 2014 4 of 6
Attachments: 1. Meeting Agenda
Meeting Staff: Marc Williams, Caroline Love, Roger Beall, Susan Howard, Lindsey Kimmitt, and Cary Karnstadt (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia, Nair Barrios, and Chris Lazaro (Jacobs) Aimee Vance (K Strategies) District Staff Present: Steven Endres and Tony Hartzel (TxDOT Dallas District) Deanne Simmons (TxDOT Atlanta District) Glenn Green and Randy Hoffman (TxDOT Tyler District)
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting April 17 and 24, 2014 5 of 6
Attachment 1
Meeting Agenda
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting April 17 and 24, 2014 6 of 6
I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Conference Call
April 17 and 24, 2014
Agenda:
Welcome and Introductions
1. Update on Public Outreach
2. Members to provide an update on activities that they have conducted
3. Draft public input survey
4. May/June meeting date and location
5. Potential date for July/August meeting
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 1 of 6
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting
Tuesday, February 18, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Mesquite Arts Center, Mesquite, Texas
FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
Name Organization Members Present
Judge Clay Jenkins Dallas CountyRay Clark (alternate for Judge Bruce Wood) Kaufman County Judge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg CountyJudge Hugh Taylor Harrison County Mayor John Monaco City of Mesquite Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs John Clary (alternate for Mayor Robert Nelson) City of Lindale Martin Heines (alternate for Mayor Barbara Bass) City of TylerMichael Morris NCTCOG
Michael Miles (alternate for Gary C. Thomas) DART
Linda Ryan Thomas, Director* NETRMA
Celia Boswell NETRMA
Heather Nick, Director Tyler MPO
Karen Owen* Longview MPO Members Not Present
Judge Rhita Koches Van Zandt County Judge Joel Baker Smith CountyMayor Harold Magill City of Seagoville Mayor Darren Rozell City of Forney Mayor Hal Richards City of TerrellMayor Richard Lawrence City of Canton Mayor Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall
*Participated in the meeting via conference call. To view the complete meeting sign‐in sheets, see Attachment 1.
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) provide members with an update on the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study progress; 2) discuss public outreach materials provided to members and how to use them; 3) review I‐20 corridor analysis completed to date; 4) identify needed improvement projects along the I‐20 corridor; and 5) plan for future meetings. A PowerPoint presentation was utilized to provide an overview of aforementioned items during the meeting. The agenda and presentation are included as Attachment 2. Open House: The Advisory Committee meeting began with an open house featuring exhibits focusing on the following topics:
General corridor maps including planned/programmed improvement projects and recorded right of way maps
Existing and future traffic data, freight traffic data and level of service Safety concerns including crash data, pavement conditions, vertical clearances
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 2 of 6
Crash hotspot analysis Community connections such as overpasses, interchanges and frontage roads Interchange analysis maps Timeline of proposed activities for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study Forms of public outreach used on other TxDOT projects such as I‐69 and My35
The open house also featured three 15‐foot corridor maps, breaking the corridor into three sections: west (Dallas and Kaufman counties), central (Van Zandt and Smith counties) and east (Gregg and Harrison counties). Previous comments received from members regarding problem issues were documented on the maps. The maps were also used during the small group activity for members to identify improvement projects needed in their regions on the map. To view exhibits displayed during the open house, see Attachment 3. Welcome/Introductions: Advisory Committee Chairman Judge Bill Stoudt (Gregg County) welcomed attendees to the meeting and thanked Mayor John Monaco for hosting the meeting at the Mesquite Arts Center. Commissioner Jeff Austin III joined the Advisory Committee meeting via conference call to thank the members for joining and for the work that has been done as part of the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study to date. Commissioner Austin also reminded members that the information gathered from this study would be presented later this year to the Texas Transportation Commission to further the progress of improvements for I‐20. Marc Williams (TxDOT), acting as the Advisory Committee Facilitator, then asked committee members to introduce themselves. Safety Briefing: Marc Williams provided a safety briefing for all meeting attendees highlighting evacuation routes from the building and locations of restrooms, fire extinguishers, and tornado shelter areas within the building, as well as considerations when driving in winter weather. Status of the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study: Marc Williams reminded members of the objectives‐ranking survey that was sent via email to each of the members prior to the meeting and would be discussed later in the meeting. He also offered the survey to anyone who had not had a chance to complete the survey yet. Marc then gave members a brief update on the progress of the study, highlighted activities that would be taking place during the next few months including the beginnings of public involvement, mentioned the draft document availability in fall 2014, and then be reviewed by the Advisory Committee in November before the legislative session starts in 2015. Public Outreach Materials: Susan Howard (TxDOT) gave a brief introduction to the public outreach materials available for the Advisory Committee members to use including talking points, frequently asked questions (FAQs), comment cards, activity forms, fact sheets, community PowerPoint presentation and an Outreach
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 3 of 6
Guidance sheet offering tips and tricks to use each of the provided tools. Hard copies of all of the materials were given to each of the members to reproduce and share with their constituents and members were informed they would also be receiving digital copies after the meeting via email. Susan then highlighted some opportunities where public outreach could be conducted for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study include City council meetings, presentations to service organizations or local groups, and the possibility of including the Corridor Study information on their webpages or social media sites. She also suggested placing printed materials in local libraries or public spaces to provide as many avenues to spread the word as possible. Susan mentioned that any materials members might need that have not already been provided could be produced on an as‐needed basis. Members were informed that the included activity forms should be completed and submitted to Caroline Love (TxDOT) following presentations conducted regarding the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study. Susan mentioned that Aimee Vance (K Strategies) would be following up with the members on a regular basis to answer any questions, provide assistance with public outreach or address any concerns members might have throughout the public outreach process. Prioritize Committee Objectives: Members were emailed an online survey to complete prior to the meeting to prioritize the list of objectives developed during the October 2013 meeting. Printed surveys were handed out to members who had not completed the survey prior to attending today’s meeting. Susan Howard then reviewed the results of the 16 completed surveys received both prior to and during the meeting, highlighting the top three priorities for each of the goals set for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study, as shown below: Involve local communities
1. Create transportation plans that complement local development plans 2. Outline potential safety impacts to properties along or near the I‐20 corridor (e.g. residential,
mix use, commercial, etc.) 3. Establish framework for transportation reinvestment zones (TRZs) along I‐20 to assist in funding
all modes and adopt TRZs locally
Consider current and future multi‐modal transportation needs 1. Accommodate all needed forms of transportation using existing I‐20 geometry and right of way
(ROW) 2. Consider the impact of I‐20 planning on Toll 49 3. Consider US 80 and 175 in addition to the I‐20 corridor
Improve safety
1. Reconstruct access ramps to current standards 2. Additional lanes in congested areas on I‐20 3. Construct one‐way service roads to divert traffic in event of I‐20 closings
Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for travelers and freight
1. Coordination of improvements where municipalities are updating their infrastructure and
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 4 of 6
thoroughfare plans to complement this study effort 2. Consider rail hubs as connectors to urban areas 3. Build relationships with passenger service providers including plans for service expansion and
diversification
Enhance air quality 1. Construct continuous one‐way frontage roads with priority to high volume/high accident areas 2. Create high occupancy lanes (HOL) to alleviate congestion 3. Reduce idling in case of accident or lane closures
Members were asked if there were any results they did not agree with. It was mentioned that planning for the I‐69 interchange near Marshall should still be included as part of the goal for considering current and future multimodal transportation needs. Clarification was made in regards to the missing survey responses from members. All members present at this meeting’s surveys were included. Several of the members whose surveys were missing have not participated in any of the Advisory Committee meetings to date. Results of all 16 responses are included in Attachment 4. Early Successes for I‐20 East Texas Corridor: Michael Morris (NCTCOG) provided handouts to all meeting attendees addressing several early successes of the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study’s Advisory Committee. Michael highlighted a variety of methods and strategies that could be used to make progress towards the goals outlined by the Advisory Committee as well as to implement and fund improvements identified by this study along the corridor. The handout is included in Attachment 5. Developing the I‐20 Highway Master Plan: Michael Sexton (Jacobs) gave members an overview of the information about the I‐20 East Texas corridor that has been gathered so far in relation to crash hotspots, right of way, median widths and interchange analysis. He also provided data in reference to the number of obstacles and opportunities for improvement throughout the corridor including interchanges, bridges, on‐ramps, off‐ramps, overpasses and the location of frontage roads. Detailed information in regards to crash data was then broken down into further detail regarding fatal and incapacitating crashes, snow and ice‐related crashes and overturned vehicle crashes both within the hotspots and throughout the corridor. Michael also showed the members maps of existing right of ways and median widths that would allow for improvement areas. He then explained the analysis that has been conducted on the on‐ and off‐ramps throughout the corridor. A grading system was applied to each of the ramps showing where each of the ramps fall in accordance with standards. Each ramp was studied both by an aerial camera and also by physically driving each of the ramps to collect vertical clearance information. Members were asked to review the information about the ramps as part of the small group exercise following this presentation and provide information if they disagreed with any of the ratings applied to ramps in their areas. After Michael’s presentation was concluded, a member asked if the study would also be evaluating US
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 5 of 6
80. Marc Williams emphasized that data on US 80 has not been collected as of yet, but could be included in the future. Another member also mentioned that areas where there is currently no frontage road would be ideal areas to begin studying alternate highway potential. Small Group Exercise: Committee members broke into three groups according to their location along the I‐20 corridor; specifically, West (Dallas and Kaufman counties), Central (Van Zandt and Smith counties) and East (Gregg and Harrison counties). Susan Howard, Aimee Vance and Roger Beall (TxDOT) served as group facilitators as each of the members left notes on their area maps and wrote notes in relation to comments members had on identifying projects along the corridor based on factors such as capacity needs, safety improvements, economic development needs and multi‐modal improvements. After each of the groups were finished meeting, members were then asked to peruse the other two groups’ maps to review or leave comments on the other two sections of the corridor. All of the members then reconvened and each group chose a representative to present their synopsis of issues discussed during the group meetings. Group One, representing the western section of the corridor, presented first and mentioned themes centered on the following:
Separate northbound 175 traffic from westbound I‐20 Add an additional lane traveling east at US 80 and I‐20 interchange Improved signage traveling west at US 80 and I‐20 Add median barriers on Kaufman County side of I‐20 Reconfigure FM 429 and I‐20 interchange in Terrell Frontage roads at major interchanges like FM 34 and work east/west from there US 80 and I‐20 are close partners in the western region Frontage roads and new access roads should be coordinated with local entities
Group Two, representing the central section of the corridor, present themes centered on the following:
Focusing specifically on I‐20, not US 80 Potential high speed rail must be along the I‐20 corridor to be useful Create a multimodal connection near Lindale for rail Extend the I‐20 intersection for Toll 49 back to Jim Hogg Road Plan for future vehicle needs Reconstruct access ramps starting at the Smith County line and into Van Zandt County Create frontage roads between Toll 49 and 271 Evaluate interchange at 859 and I‐20 in Canton
Group Three, representing the eastern section of the corridor, presented themes centered on the following:
Ramps in Gregg County at Highway 31, 42 and 135 Additional lanes in Longview area Integrated traffic management in highest traffic areas are all in flood plains, should use US 80
as part of that plan instead of frontage roads or additional lanes Additional lanes at I‐20 and Highway 59 in Harrison County to allow for better access to
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 6 of 6
Highway 43 Additional lanes along I‐20 at major intersections through both Harrison and Gregg counties Increased connectivity in relation to Toll 49, I‐69/369 and into Loop 390
Future Meetings: Marc Williams thanked members for their participation in the Advisory Committee meetings and activities, aiding the study team create the finalized report over the next few months. He then discussed that the next Advisory Committee meeting in April 2014 would be a conference call to update members on progress of the study and to allow them to provide feedback on their public outreach efforts. The next in‐person meeting will be held in May to reconvene and discuss the outcomes of public outreach efforts as well as present members with initial project recommendations. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:
Send digital copies of public outreach materials to members Schedule April conference call meeting Check on members’ progress on public outreach efforts regularly
Attachments:
1. Advisory Committee Sign‐In Sheets 2. Meeting Agenda and Presentation 3. Open House Exhibits 4. Objectives Prioritization Survey Responses 5. Early Successes for IH 20 East Texas Corridor
Meeting Staff: Marc Williams, Caroline Love, Susan Howard, Roger Beall, Cary Karnstadt, Lindsey Kimmitt and Peggy Thurin (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia, Chris Lazaro and Nair Barrios (Jacobs) Aimee Vance and Jenny Paredes (K Strategies)
Attachment 1 Advisory Committee Meeting Sign-‐In
Sheets
Attachment 2 Meeting Agenda and
Presentation
"#$%!&'()!*+,'(!-.//01./!2130(./4!-.550))++!*6+(1'47!8+9/6'/4!:;7!$%:<7!:=%%!>?!@!<=A%!>?!
?+(B60)+!2/)(!-+C)+/!D+E+'/('F!G'FF!1527 N. Galloway Avenue, Mesquite, Texas 75149-'FF#0C!""#$$%$&'%()*#""""-.CH+/+CI+!-.1+!"&(+"')$"$)++,"
-./.0!""12234!556789/4:;./.0:89<56789/456:313=>?$&@&+'A*(BC-?DE6F&D6G)HIJ;"
?++)0CJ!K<!#!2J+C1'!
(!**"K"(!&*"CH" L.MN42O72N9P"B"Q3.P"R9S4."
(!&*"K"(!A*"CH" -.T89<."B"UP2O9VS82N9P4" Judge Bill StoudtW"XO.MM"Y9SP2Z"[7\.2Z"]ON.\NPM"" """""""""""H7O8"-NTTN7<4W"^0_Q^"[272S4"9\"21."U%+*"J742"^.074"Y9OONV9O"[2SVZ" "
(!A*"K"+!(A"CH" !"#$%&'(")*+,&-'.%/&"//%01" "[S47P"R9;7OVW"^0_Q^"L.`N.;"9\"QS2O.781"H72.ON7T4"7PV"Y9<<.P24""Q3.P"Y9<<N22.."_N48S44N9P"7/9S2"D..V4W"QS2O.781"J\\9O24W"7PV"YSOO.P2"CS/TN8"Y9<<.P24"
+!(A"K"&!**"CH" CON9ON2NI."Y9<<N22.."Q/6.82N`.4" "[S47P"R9;7OVW"^0_Q^""
&!** K &!(* CH ]O.7a
&!(*"K")!+*"CH" .+2+$03%14')-+'5678'9%4-:,;'<,/)+*'!$,1' HN817.T"[.029PW">789/4"U%+*"Y9OONV9O"Y17O782.ON42N84"Y9<<N22.."NP3S2"NP29"CO.TN<NP7OZ"U<3O9`.<.P2"C944N/NTN2N.4"7PV"CON9ON2NI72N9P"b7829O4"
XO9S3"("K"-.42"c_7TT74"7PV"d7S\<7P"Y9SP2N.4e" K"L9M.O"7PV"DN417P2"XO9S3"+"K"Y.P2O7T"cf7P"E7PV2"7PV"[<N21"Y9SP2N.4e"K"FN<.."7PV"D7NO"XO9S3"&"K"J742"cXO.MM"7PV"R7OON49P"Y9SP2N.4e"K"[S47P"7PV"Y1ON4"
L6+()0.C!).!'11/+((!16/0CJ!)E+!(5'FF!J/.6M!(+((0.C=!UV.P2N\Z"3O96.824"c;N21"T9872N9P"7PV".02.P2e"7T9PM"21."89OONV9O"/74.V"9P"\7829O4"TNa."87378N2Z"
P..V4W"47\.2Z"N<3O9`.<.P24W".89P9<N8"V.`.T93<.P2"P..V4W"7PV"<ST2N%<9V7T"N<3O9`.<.P24:"J07<3T.4"NP8TSV."O7<3"O.89P\NMSO72N9PW"7VVNPM"47\.2Z"/7OON.O4W"P.;5O.89P42OS82"NP2.O817PM.W"7VV5N<3O9`."\O9P27M."O97V4W"7VV"<7NP"T7P.4W"7VV"3744.PM.O"4.O`N8.W"3O9`NV.5N<3O9`."89PP.82N9P"29"<ST2N%<9V7T5VN42ON/S2N9P"8.P2.O4:"""
&!AA"CH!!! H.</.O4"29"3O9`NV."NP3S2"9P"21."2;9"921.O"MO9S34:")!*A"CH!!! L.39O2"9S2"\O9<"7"<.</.O"9\".781"MO9S3"
)!+* K )!&*"CH YT94NPM"Y9<<.P245D.02"H..2NPM >SVM."[29SV2)!&*"CH" FV69SOP"
Meeting #4
February 18, 2014
I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Safety Briefing
Winter Driving Safety Tips !! Reduce speed. Speed limits are based on normal road and weather conditions,
not winter road conditions
!! Maintain at least three times the normal following distance on snow or ice
!! Watch carefully for snow removal equipment and stay at least 200 feet back if you are behind a snow plow
!! Use extra caution on bridges, ramps, overpasses and shaded areas as they tend to freeze first
!! If you start to slide, ease off the gas pedal or brakes. Steer into the direction of the skid until you feel you have regained traction then straighten your vehicle
2
Source: http://www.txdot.gov/driver/weather/winter-driving.html
Status of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
3
July 2013 •! Advisory
Committee Kick-off & Study Introduction
February 2014 •! Prioritize Goals
and Objectives •! Identify Potential
Projects •! Members begin
Initial Public Outreach
January 2014 •! Discuss
Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) Considerations
•! Review & Finalize Public Outreach Tools
October 2013 •! Develop Objectives •! Identify/Review
Constraints, Features, Concerns & Future Considerations
•! Discuss Public Outreach Tools
April 2014 •! Members
Continue Initial Public Outreach
•! Conference Call to update on Outreach Activities
May 2014 •! Members
Complete Initial Public Outreach
•! Evaluate & Prioritize Projects
•! Review Summary of Public Input
August 2014 •! Review Draft
Corridor Plan •! Prepare for Draft
Corridor Plan Public Outreach
Sept.-Oct. 2014 •! Hold Open
House(s)
November 2014 •! Review Public
Input Received at Open House(s)
•! Finalize Corridor Plan
December 2014
•! Presentation to Commission
•! Members help spread the word that a Final Corridor Plan is available on the website
We are here:
Indicates Committee Meeting
Public Outreach Discussion
!!Public Outreach Materials –!Fact Sheet
–!Talking Points
–!Frequently Asked Questions
–!Community Presentation
–!Activity Form
–!Comment Card
–!Social Media Outreach
!!Public Outreach Opportunities
4
Committee Goals and Objectives
Goals:
1.! Involve Local Communities
2.! Consider Current and Future Multimodal Transportation Needs
3.! Improve Safety
4.! Reduce Congestion and Enhance Mobility for Travelers and Freight
5.! Enhance Air Quality
Discussion of the Survey Results
5
Developing the I-20
Highway Master Plan
6
I-20 Corridor – Crash Hotspot Analysis
7
8
I-20 Corridor – Crash Hotspot Analysis
I-20 – Fatal and Incapacitating Crashes
9
I-20 Corridor – Snow and Ice Related Crashes
10
I-20 Corridor – Overturned Vehicle Crashes
11
I-20 Corridor – Right of Way and Median Widths
12
I-20 Corridor – Ramp Analysis
13
Developing the I-20 Highway Master Plan
14
Traffic Congestion
High Crash Rates
Need for Economic
Development
Add Capacity
Improve Safety
Improve Accessibility
•!Add Main Lanes •!Add/Improve
Passenger Service
•!Add Median
Barriers •!Improve Ramps
•!Add Lighting •!Raise Overpass
Clearances
•!Add Frontage Roads
•!Add New Interchanges
Concern Need Possible Improvement
Examples to describe approach to identifying improvements/projects
Small Group Work Sessions
15
West !"##"$%&'()*+%,"(-.")%&'()*+%&/*+%'-%01$2(/*1%&/*+%'-%3"#45%678/)9$%:&;&<=&/*+%'-%;1881##%!>?;%&/*+%'-%@'8)1+%&/*+%'-%61"9'A/##1%
Central 6./*5%&'()*+%;+#18%0B<%;+#18%0B<%C")%D")E*%&'()*+%&/*+%'-%;+#18&/*+%'-%&")*')%&/*+%'-%F/)E"#1%:G;?0>%
East :G;?0>%=8199%&'()*+%H"88/$')%&'()*+%F')9A/1I%0B<%&/*+%'-%F')9A/1I&/*+%'-%0"8$5"##%
Next Meeting Date and Location
16
April 2014 Conference Call for status update on Initial Public Outreach
May 2014 Review public input summary and
Prioritize Projects
Attachment 3 Open House Exhibits
ADVISORY COMMITTEE: MISSION STATEMENT
“ THE I-20 EAST TEXAS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WILL PROMOTE AND FACILITATE THE INVOLVEMENT AND INPUT OF AFFECTED LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND INTERESTED
STAKEHOLDERS TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE THE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF THE
CORRIDOR WITH A FOCUS ON SAFETY, MOBILITY, CONGESTION, AND AIR QUALITY FOR TRAVELERS AND
FREIGHT THROUGH EAST TEXAS ”
DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
LOCATION WITH PLANNED & PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS
Two-lane Frontage Roads
2014
Construction ofFreeway Ramps to
Seagoville Rd.2013
New Interchange at Kleberg Rd.
2020
ConstructionFrontage Roads
2035
ExpansionFrom 4 to 6 lanes
2035 ExpansionFrom 4 to 6 lanes
2030Expansion
From 4 to 6 lanes2035
TEXAS
TEXAS
LO
UI
SI
AN
A
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITHGREGG
HARRISON
TEXAS
TEXAS
Bridge Wideningat LP 281
Underpass ¹
Bridge Wideningat FM 450
Underpass ¹Bridge Wideningat Mason Creek ¹
1571
3413
125
1305
84
782
2205
3270
3530
1126
1234
1520
1892
19
1089
1522
3299
1798
878
726
2451
2
2274635
805
2215
2792
3198
3341
2983
1903
1483
269
2260
2016
664
55A
3379
764
3389
345
984
3245
2653
2946
2892
3311
514
55
514
288
1795
598
2963
36
3225
2612
688
3271
2813
1140
1141
2551
3421
1324
2453
2515
1975
2642
850
3226
726
2422
25602297
2970
2649130
16
1972
1139
2276
2750
968
2682
983
25141521
2752
2930
161
20812057
2728
2636
2911
2015
513
2607
1513
3310
250
2751
551
3052
918
1565
1969
3549
709
2932
2010
1520
728
317
2206
3042
348
1639
999
549
1803
997
29462795
3039
3358
21
959
2868
3506
3054
1903
805
1182
3056
2588
1390
2948
857
2475
2906
1799
1571
857
1803
1667
3384
1392
838
1794
1971
1564
17
2555
451
633348
3094
2089
544
839856
1968
3204
2198
3019
1975
177
780
1647
6
2493
317
2964
3251
3274
2908
2451
1805
1777
2683
858
3079
744
2137
3396
1138
3357
1716
2495
849
2064
552
1641
1999
2755
2613
1390
450
1519
1653
316
2947
1643
2324
1839
124
804
740
1722
2087
2683
2207
2737
1652
269
1567
1801
3041
1795
248
2263
2659
1841
852
727
514
2254
637
2199
3135
2658
3383
2728
3359
1795
1603
1797
1404
513
1389
3080
225
1255
2795
2965
1391
1395
250
593
726
1564
1519
2859
2494
16162329
2455
1388
35
1504
16
985
1393
3227
757
848
556
987
1895
2867
813
2454
2860
1804
3096
251
1567
1256
2275
1254
1183
726
2727
115
1567
2208
144
2204
1567
36
986
2728
2015
2225
514
879
1650
2909
2012
1448
161
3441
317
1798
124
724
2879
756
2709
316
3001
1845
3231
741
16
1841
10
1249
2796
349
1793
858
550
2011
15
852
9
1615
855
726
959
2685
555
1997
1649
1998
123
1970
49
548
515
1995
1844
2578
2339
556
2869
773
3053
450
314
2101
1253
993
1255
248
753
17
699
773
1565
636
59
548
134
275
840
450
1651
2661
90
1716
740
1251
1794
607
1861
1186
429
9
148
1129
429
1181
2276
2208
968
778
751
852
1836
1002
2493
134
2869
2966
859
660
55769
31
312
314
17
1252
344
2767
782
515
279
1126 2517
13
729
449
49
148
779
85
125
16
315
31
346
850
2625
2088
47
14
87
43
161
235
173
322
449
243
77
164
561
155
437
60
152
572
264
57
124
147
7
244
238179
469
8
485
149
248
63
364
557
571
34
31
190
49
309
502
352
12
334
135
182
390
19
135
155
323
155
22315
322
135
300
281
276
323
154276
11
274
205
155
78
110
34
66
243
149
37
64
42
110
198
43
34
43
155
31
49
11
64
19
31
154
287
259
287259
79
79
259
271
59
69
175
80
635
30
45
20
20
dwell
Terrell
Corsicana
McLendon-Chisholm
RoyseCity
Fate
Murphy
BalchSprings
Seagoville
Rockwall
Heath
Rowlett
Lavon
RichardsonWylie
Garland
a e
Sachse
Dallas
Plano
Mesquite
tchins
Ferris
Wilmer
UnionValley
Rice
Kerens
GoodlowBarry
Eureka
Forney
Nevada
Kaufman
Cottonwood
Josephine
Quinlan
HawkCove
CombineCrandall
CaddoMills
Lone Oak
WestTawakoni
Ennis
Marshall
UnionGrove
Murchison
Linden
Kilgore
Ore City
Jefferson
NewLondonOverton
Eustace
EastMountain
Noonday
Arp
Athens
Carthage
StarHarbor
TroupTrinidad
GilmerMineolaGrand
SalineFruitvale
Tyler
Hawkins
Beckville
Tool
Whitehouse
Edom
NewChapel
Hill
HallsvilleWaskom
Van
Hideaway
LongviewWhiteOak
LoneStar
Winnsboro
Point
TatumChandler
EastTawakoni Emory
Quitman
Scottsville
Brownsboro
Hughes SpringsPittsburg
Lakeport
Easton
MooreStation
Malakoff
Canton Gladewater
Daingerfield
WillsPoint
Henderson
LogCabin
WarrenCity
SevenPoints
ELLIS
PANOLARUSK
NAVARRO
CHEROKEE
ANDERSON
HENDERSON
TITUSFRANKLIN
HUNT
MORRISHOPKINSCOLLIN
CASSCAMP
WOOD
RAINSROCKWALL
MARION
UPSHUR
KCS
KCS
SEPC
DART D
GNO
TEXU
UP
UP
BLR
UP
BNSF
TEXU
UP
DGNO
UP
UP BNSF
KCS
UP
UP
LegendI-20 Study Corridor
Interstate
US Highway
State Highway
Railroads
Amtrak Stations
General Aviation Airport
Reliever Airport
MULTI
I-20 Study Area Counties
Counties
City Boundaries
Project Boundaries
Date: 10/17/2013Source: TxDOT, MPOIP, TRTP,UTP.
Project Development Stages
Planned and Programmed Improvements
Project Description
0 10 205Miles
¹ Year unavailable.
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
RIGHT OF WAYLegend
§̈¦20
§̈¦635
D A L L A S K A U F M A N
598
3039
740
9861392688
1389
2728
429
2965
2932
2757
2728
2727
548
1641
987
740
2728
2578
741
429
148
UV
UV87
UV352
UV205 UV34
UV557
UV34
£�175
£�80
PostO k B d
Talty
TerrellBalchSprings
Seagoville
Sunnyvale
Dallas
Mesquite
chinsWilmer
Forney
CombineCrandall
OakRidge
UP
540
480420470420
320400
450 480 500
380
WEST
§̈¦20
LO
UI
SI
AN
ATEXAS
TEXAS
1844
2205
1997
2983
3379
2276
26852879
2605
16 968
3053
3272
2011
2206
3251
449
1845
2087
2207
9
2208
2199
134
9
2275
450
349
1998
31
968
1252
2625UV322
UV156
UV154
UV322
UV390
UV485
UV390
UV43
UV63
UV149
UV502UV300
UV31
UV42UV135
UV43
UV281
£�80
£�259
£�259
£�59
£�271
£�80
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
Marshall
Grove
Kilgore
Hallsville
Waskom
LongviewWhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
GladewaterClarksville
City
WarrenCity
UP
SEPC
UPBNSF
UP
UP
60
500300
360 540
300
500
300
EAST
49
1861316
3270
16B
2908773
3271
3311
2422
3056
16
778
2911
2015
857
724
1801
1504
757
90
279
857
10021795
858
1805
849
1653
1255
1404
1652
2869
2659
859
16
3227
1804
2015
1252
314
2909
2710
16
858
1995
1253
773
17
1255
1651
47
14
16
UV564
UV155
UV155
UV243
UV198
UV19
UV64
UV110
£�271
£�69
£�80§̈¦20
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
BigSandy
Mineola
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Gladew
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
510
350
455
350
350
480360
540
400300
300
380
325
300
400
330
500
CENTRALCentral
West
East
0 5 102.5Miles ¯
349 or less
350 - 399
400 or more
I -20 Corridor
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties
Source: TxDOT RHiNo Data (2012)
Right of Way Average in Feet
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
2012 TRAFFIC CONDITIONSLegend
45,000(27%)
Urban 6-lanes
34,000(30%)
Urban 6-lanes 34,000(30%)
26,000(20%)
24,000(20%)
44,000(15%)
20
635
D A L L A S K A U F M A N
45,000(15%)
598
3039
740
9861392688
1389
2728
429
2965
2932
2757
2728
2727
548
1641
987
740
2728
2578
741
429
148
352
87
352
205 34
557
34
175
80
Post
Talty
TerrellBalch
Springs
Seagoville
Sunnyvale
Dallas
Mesquite
chinsWilmer
Forney
CombineCrandall
OakRidge
UP
WEST
20
49
28,000(34%)
24,000(37%)
29,000(33%)
26,000(35%) 30,000
(35%) 22,000(40%) 26,000
(38%) 23,000(40%) 28,000
(37%)
36,000(30%)
31,000(32%)
26
1861
3270
316
2908
1801
3311
773
3056
3271
7782422
2911
857
2015
1504
90
1002
724
1795
857
757
279
858
1805
1255
849
2869
1652
1653
1404
2659
859
16
3227
1804
2015
1252
314
2909
2710
17
16
858
1253
1995
773
1255
1651
47
14
16
564
155
155
243
198
19
64
110
271
69
8020
20
20
BigSandy
Mineola
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Glade
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
CENTRAL
LO
UI
SI
AN
ATEXAS
TEXAS
28,000(37%)
28,000(37%)
33,000(34%)
34,000(33%)
33,000(33%)
31,000(35%)
31,000(35%)
30,000(35%)
31,000(35%)
259G
2205
220411862204
2685
2963
2983
2879
3379
757
2605
2276
968
3272
3053
2206
451
16
449
2906
2011
1845
3251
9
2208
2767
2087
2207
2199
134
2275
450
9
349
1998
31
968
1252
2625
322
156
43
390390
322
48563
502300
31
31
149
42
13543
281
80
259
259
59
271
80
20
20
20
Marshall
Kilgore
Hallsville
Waskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
UP
SEPC
UP
UP
BNSF
UP
EAST
0 5 102.5Miles
Average Daily TrafficUp to 24,999
25,000 - 28,999
29,000 - 34,999
35,000 - 44,999
45,000 - 54,999
55,000 or more
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties
45,000
Level of Service (Main Lanes)
A-B C-D E-F
XX,XXX(YY%)
Average Daily Traffic 2012(Percent Truck Traffic)
29,00080,00049,000Urban
Rural (4 lanes)
(6 lanes)
Source: TxDOT RHiNo Data (2012)
Central
West
East
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
2032 TRAFFIC CONDITIONSLegend
62,000(27%)
Urban 6-lanes
47,000(30%)
Urban 6-lanes 47,000(30%)
41,000(18%)
34,000(20%)
57,000(16%)
62,000(15%)
D A L L A S K A U F M A N
598
3039
740
9861392688
1389
2728
429
2965
2932
2757
2728
2727
548
1641
987
740
2728
2578
741
429
148
352
87
352
205 34
557
34
175
80
Post
Talty
TerrellBalch
Springs
Seagoville
Sunnyvale
Dallas
Mesquite
chinsWilmer
Forney
CombineCrandall
OakRidge
UP
WEST
2020
635
49
39,000(34%)
34,000(37%)
41,000(33%)
41,000(33%) 30,000
(40%) 36,000(38%) 32,000
(40%) 39,000(37%)
49,000(30%)
26
1861
3270
316
2908
1801
3311
773
3056
3271
7782422
2911
857
2015
1504
90
1002
724
1795
857
757
279
858
1805
1255
849
2869
1652
1653
1404
2659
859
16
3227
1804
2015
1252
314
2909
2710
17
16
858
1253
1995
773
1255
1651
47
14
16
564
155
155
243
198
19
64
110
271
69
8020
20
20
BigSandy
Mineola
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Glade
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
CENTRAL
LO
UI
SI
AN
ATEXAS
TEXAS
39,000(37%)
46,000(34%)
45,000(34%)
47,000(33%)
47,000(33%)
44,000(34%)
44,000(35%)
42,000(35%)
47,000(34%)
2205
220411862204
2685
2963
2983
2879
3379
757
2605
2276
968
3272
3053
2206
451
16
449
2906
2011
1845
3251
9
2208
2767
2087
2207
2199
134
2275
450
9
349
1998
31
968
1252
2625
322
156
43
390390
322
48563
502300
31
31
149
42
13543
281
80
259
259
59
271
80
20
20
Marshall
Kilgore
Hallsville
Waskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
UP
SEPC
UP
BNSF
UP
EAST
0 5 102.5Miles
Up to 24,999
25,000 - 28,999
29,000 - 34,999
35,000 - 44,999
45,000 - 54,999
55,000 or more
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties
45,000
Level of Service (Main Lanes)
A-B C-D E-F
XX,XXX(YY%)
Average Daily Traffic 2012(Percent Truck Traffic)
29,00080,00049,000Urban
Rural (4 lanes)
(6 lanes)
Source: TxDOT RHiNo Data (2012)
Average Daily Traffic
Central
West
East
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
CRASH RATES (2008-2012)1392 986688
429
3039
2728
2728
2932
1389
2757
2965
548
1641740
2728987
2727
741
2578
429
148
87
205 34
557
34
175
80635
20
Post OakBend
Talty
TerrellBalchSprings
Seagoville
Dallas
Mesquite
chins
Wilmer
Forney
KaufmanCombine
CrandallOak
Ridge
K A U F M A NK A U F M A ND A L L A SD A L L A S
UP
076
1920
7232
28
20
51
2668
62
22
44
32
6
26
1938
30
55
11 36
WEST
US 69
346
49
Tyler
965
3270
3271
2908773
16B
3311
2422
16
858
2911
2015
724
757
279
778857
90
3056
857
1504
858
1805
1002
849
1653
1795
1652
1801
26591404
28691255
162015
3227
859
1804
314
1252
2909
2710
16
1995
773
1253
1255
17
1651
47
14
16
564
155
198
155
243
19
64 110
271
69
80
20
BigSandy
Mineola
Saline
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Gladew
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
UP
3
21
13
36
58
16
68
28
112
65
67
4767
45
68
88
62
123
68100
40
38
111
75
57
75
69
100
9837
19
45
109
21
38
19
21
39
24
47
32
129
52
44
48
44
73
CENTRAL
110
Loop 281 SE
FM 2087SH 31SH 42
LO
UI
SI
AN
A
2685
2205
20121639
2879
2983
3379
29631186
3272 2605
96816
2275
2276
2206
1845
3053
2208
2906
9
451
3251
2011
2087
2207
134
2199
450
2767
2204
9
349
1998
968 31
1252
2625
322
390390
485
322
50263
300
31
149
31
42135
43
281
80
79
80
259
259
80
59
27180
20
Marshall
Kilgore
HallsvilleWaskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
SEPC
UP
BNSF
UP
UP
117
30
87
1933
44
65
33
251
79
80
65 90
45
57232
55
153
295 111
40
38
116
28
52
26
5935
4748 80
3130
57
48
EAST
0 5 102.5Miles Source: TxDOT Crash Records Information System (CRIS)
Central
West
East
Crash Hotspots
Railroads
Interchanges (Half Mile Radius)
I-20 Study Area Counties0 44 88 346
Crash Rate* (Main Lanes)Five-year Average Crash Rate for
Texas Rural Interstates: 43.9
* Crash rate measured per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
Legend
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PAVEMENT CONDITIONSLegend
20
635
598740
3039
9861392
688
1389
429
2728
2965
2932
2757
2728
548
1641
2727
987
740
2728
2578
741
429
148
87
205 34
557
34
175
80
Post OakBend
Talty
TerrellBalch
Springs
Seagoville
Sunnyvale
Dallas
Mesquite
chins
Wilmer
Forney
CombineCrandall
OakRidge
K A U F M A NK A U F M A ND A L L A SD A L L A S
UP
WEST
49Tyler
20
2965
3270
3271
2908773
3311
2422
16
858
2911
2015
724
757
279
778857
90
3056
857
1504
858
1805
1002
849
1653
1795
1652
1801
26591404
28691255
162015
3227
859
1804
314
1252
2909
2710
16
1995
773
1253
1255
17
1651
47
14
16
564
155
198
155
243
19
64 110
271
69
80
BigSandy
Mineola
Saline
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Hideaway
Canton
Gladew
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
UP
CENTRAL
Resurface RoadwayFrom: 1.5 mi East of FM 1255To: Smith County LineStatus: FUNDED
Resurface RoadwayFrom: 0.8 mi East of US 69To: FM 2015Status: FUNDED
LO
UI
SI
AN
A
20
259G57
2205
220411862204
26852879
2983
2963
33792605
2276
968
3272
449
16
3053
2206
451
2906
2011
1845
3251
2208
9
2767
2087
2207
2199
134
2275
450
9
349
1998
31
968
1252
2625
322
43
390390
322
48563
502300
31
31
149
42135
43
281
79
259
259
59
271
80
Marshall
Kilgore
HallsvilleLongview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
UP
SEPC
UP
BNSF
UP
EAST
Resurface Roadway (Eastbound Lanes)From: 2.1 mi West of FM 450To: 0.5 mi West of SH 43Status: FUNDED
Resurface RoadwayFrom: 0.5 mi West of SH 43To: East End of Eight Mile Creek BridgeStatus: COMPLETED (2012)
Resurface RoadwayFrom: East End of Eight Mile Creek BridgeTo: 0.5 mi West of US 80Status: COMPLETED (2012)
Resurface Roadway (Westbound Lanes)From: 0.5 mi West of US 80To: Louisiana State LineStatus: COMPLETED (2012)
Central
West
East
0 5 102.5Miles Source: TxDOT Pavement Management Information System (PMIS), FY 2013
Updated Pavement Score Required
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties
Scheduled Pavement Improvement Projects
Pavement Condition ScoreVery Good (90 - 100)
Good (70 - 89)
Fair (50 - 69)
Poor (35 - 49)
Very Poor (1 - 34)
g
Updated Pavement Score Required
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
VERTICAL CLEARANCESLegend
20
635
598740
3039
9861392
688
1389
429
2728
2965
2932
2757
2728
5481641
2727
987
740
2728
2578
741
429148
87
205
34
557
34175
80
PostOakBend
Talty
TerrellBalch
Springs
Seagoville
Sunnyvale
Dallas
Mesquite
tchinsWilmer
Forney
Combine
CrandallOak
Ridge
K A U F M A NK A U F M A N
D A L L A SD A L L A S
UP
WEST
LO
UI
SI
AN
A
20
259G7
2205
220411862204
26852879
2983
2963
33792605
2276
968
3272
449
16
3053
2206
451
2906
2011
1845
3251
2208
9
2767
2087
2207
2199
134
2275
450
9
349
1998
31
968
1252
2625322
43
390390
322
48563
502300
31
31
149
42135
43
281
79
80
259
259
59
271
80
Marshall
Kilgore
Hallsville
Waskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
UP
SEPC
UP
UP
BNSF
UP
EAST
0 5 102.5Miles
49Tyler
20
2965
3270
3271
2908773
16B
3311
2422
16
858
2911
2015
724
757
279
778857
90
3056
857
1504
858
1805
1002
849
1653
1795
1652
1801
26591404
28691255
162015
3227
859
1804
314
1252
2909
2710
16
1995
773
1253
1255
17
1651
47
14
16
564
155
198
155
243
19
64 110
271
69
80
BigSandy
Mineola
GrandSaline
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Gladew
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
UP
CENTRALCentral
West
East
Interchanges (Half Mile Radius)
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties16' 16'6"Meets neither FHWA nor TxDOT
standards
Meets FHWA but not TxDOT
standards
Meets bothFHWA and TxDOT
standards
Vertical Clearance at Overpasses
Direction of Travel at CrossingWestbound
Eastbound
Source: Jacobs; Google MapsImage: FHWA
Effect of Oversized Vehicles Traveling Below Bridges With Low Clearance
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
CRASH HOTSPOT ANALYSIS
0 5 102.5Miles
0 5 102.5Miles
US 69
346
49
Tyler
2965
3270
3271
2908773
16B
3311
2422
16
858
2911
2015
724
757
279
778857
90
3056
857
1504
858
1805
1002
849
1653
1795
1652
1801
26591404
28691255
162015
3227
859
1804
314
1252
2909
2710
16
1995
773
1253
1255
17
1651
47
14
16
UV564
UV155
UV198
UV155
UV243
UV19
UV64 UV110
£�271
£�69
£�80
§̈¦20
BigSandy
Mineola
GrandSaline
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Glade
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
UP
21
13
36
58
16
68
28
112
65
67
4767
45
68
88
62
123
68100
40
38
111
75
57
75
69
100
9837
19
45
109
21
38
19
21
39
24
47
32
129
52
44
48
44
73
CENTRALCentral
0 5 102.5Miles
¯Crash Hotspots
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties
0 44 88 346
Crash Rate* (Main Lanes)Five-year Average Crash Rate for
Texas Rural Interstates: 43.9
* Crash rate measured per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
Legend
Source: TxDOT Crash Records Information System (CRIS)
Summary of Crash Hotspots
1392 986
1390
429
2728
2728
548
3039
2932
2757
2965
1389
740 1641
2728987
2727
741
2578
429
148
UV87UV205
UV243
UV34
UV557
UV34
£�175
£�80§̈¦635
§̈¦20
Post OakBend
Talty
TerrellBalchSprings
Seagoville
Dallas
Mesquite
hins
Wilmer
Forney
KaufmanCombine
CrandallOak
Ridge
K A U F M A NK A U F M A ND A L L A SD A L L A S
UP
076
1920
7232
28
20
51
2668
62
22
44
32
6
26
1938
30
55
11 36
WESTWest
110
Loop 281 SE
FM 2087SH 31SH 42
LO
UI
SI
AN
AT
EX
AS
2685
2205
20121639
2879
2983
3379
29631186
3272 2605
96816
2275
2276
2206
1845
3053
2208
2906
9
451
3251
2011
2087
2207
134
2199
450
2767
2204
9
349
1998
96831
1252
2625
UV322
UV390
UV390
UV485
UV322
UV502UV63
UV300
UV31
UV149
UV31
UV42UV135
UV43
UV281
£�80
£�79
£�80
£�259
£�259
£�80
£�59
£�271£�80
§̈¦20
Marshall
Kilgore
HallsvilleWaskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
SEPC
UP
BNSF
UP
UP
117
30
87
1933
44
65
33
251
79
80
65 90
45
57232
55
153
295 111
40
38
116
28
52
26
5935
4748 80
3130
57
48
EASTEast
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
CRASHES RESULTING IN FATAL & INCAPACITATING INJURIES
US 69
346
49
Tyler3270
3271
2908773
16B
3311
2422
16
858
2911
2015
724
757
279
778857
90
3056
857
1504
858
1805
1002
849
1653
1795
1652
1801
26591404
28691255
162015
3227
859
1804
314
1252
2909
2710
16
1995
773
1253
1255
17
1651
47
14
16
564
155
198
155
243
19
64 110
271
69
80
20
BigSandy
Mineola
Saline
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Gladew
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
UP
CENTRALCentral
0 5 102.5Miles
Crash SeverityFatal
Incapacitating Injury
Crash Hotspots
Railroads
Interchanges (Half Mile Radius)
I-20 Study Area Counties
1392 986688429
3039
2728
2728
2932
1389
2757
2965
548
1641740
2728987
2727
741
2578
429
148
87
205 34
557
34
175
80635
20
Post OakBend
Talty
TerrellBalchSprings
Seagoville
Dallas
Mesquite
chins
Wilmer
Forney
KaufmanCombine
CrandallOak
Ridge
K A U F M A NK A U F M A ND A L L A SD A L L A S
UP
WESTWest
110
Loop 281 SE
FM 2087SH 31SH 42
LO
UI
SI
AN
A
2685
2205
20121639
2879
2983
3379
29631186
3272 2605
96816
2275
2276
2206
1845
3053
2208
2906
9
451
3251
2011
2087
2207
134
2199
450
2767
2204
9
349
1998
968 31
1252
2625
322
156
390390
485
322
50263
300
31
149
31
42135
43
281
80
79
80
259
259
80
59
27180
20
Marshall
Kilgore
Hallsville
Waskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
SEPC
UP
BNSF
UP
UP
EASTEast
Legend
Source: TxDOT Crash Records Information System (CRIS)
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
CRASHES INVOLVING OVERTURNED VEHICLES (2008-2012)
Legend1392 986688429
3039
2728
2728
2932
1389
2757
2965
548
1641740
2728987
2727
741
2578
429
148
87
205 34
557
34
175
80635
20
Post OakBend
Talty
TerrellBalchSprings
Seagoville
Dallas
Mesquite
chins
Wilmer
Forney
C bi
CrandallOak
Ridge
K A U F M A NK A U F M A ND A L L A SD A L L A S
P
UP
WEST
110
Loop 281 SE
FM 2087SH 31SH 42
LO
UI
SI
AN
A
2685
2205
20121639
2879
2983
3379
29631186
3272 2605
96816
2275
2276
2206
1845
3053
2208
2906
9
451
3251
2011
2087
2207
134
2199
450
2767
2204
9
349
1998
968 31
1252
2625
322
156
390390
485
322
50263
300
31
149
31
42135
43
281
79
80
259
259
80
59
27180
20
Marshall
Kilgore
Hallsville
Waskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
SEPC
UP
BNSF
UP
UP
EAST
US 69
346
49
Tyler
65
3270
3271
2908773
16B
3311
2422
16
858
2911
2015
724
757
279
778857
90
3056
857
1504
858
1805
1002
849
1653
1795
1652
1801
26591404
28691255
162015
3227
859
1804
314
1252
2909
2710
16
1995
773
1253
1255
17
1651
47
14
16
564
155
198
155
243
19
64 110
271
69
80
20
BigSandy
Mineola
Saline
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Gladew
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
UP
CENTRALCentral
West
East
Crashes Involving Overturned Vehicles
Crash Hotspots
Railroads
Interchanges (Half Mile Radius)
I-20 Study Area Counties
0 5 102.5Miles
Source: TxDOT Crash Records Information System (CRIS)
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
SNOW AND ICE-RELATED CRASHES (2008-2012)
US 69
346
49
Tyler
965
3270
3271
2908773
16B
3311
2422
16
858
2911
2015
724
757
279
778857
90
3056
857
1504
858
1805
1002
849
1653
1795
1652
1801
26591404
28691255
162015
3227
859
1804
314
1252
2909
2710
16
1995
773
1253
1255
17
1651
47
14
16
564
155
198
155
243
19
64 110
271
69
80
20
BigSandy
Mineola
GrandSaline
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Gla
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
UP
21
13
36
58
16
68
28
112
67
4767
45
68
88
62
123
68100
40
38
111
75
57
75
69
100
9837
19
45
109
21
38
19
21
39
24
47
32
129
52
44
48
44
73
CENTRALCentral
0 5 102.5Miles
Snow & Ice-Related Crashes
Crash Hotspots
Railroads
Interchanges (Half Mile Radius)
I-20 Study Area Counties0 44 88 346
Corridor Crash Rate* (Main Lanes)Five-year Average Crash Rate for
Texas Rural Interstates: 43.9
* Crash rate measured per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
Legend
Source: TxDOT Crash Records Information System (CRIS)
1392 986688429
3039
2728
2728
2932
1389
2757
2965
548
1641740
2728987
2727
741
2578
429
148
87
205 34
557
34
175
80635
20
Post OakBend
Talty
TerrellBalchSprings
Seagoville
Dallas
Mesquite
ns
Wilmer
Forney
K fCombine
CrandallOak
Ridge
K A U F M A NK A U F M A ND A L L A SD A L L A S
P
UP
076
1920
7232
28
20
51
2668
62
22
44
32
6
26
1938
30
55
11 36
WESTWest
110
Loop 281 SE
FM 2087SH 31SH 42
LO
UI
SI
AN
A
2685
2205
20121639
2879
2983
3379
29631186
3272 2605
96816
2275
2276
2206
1845
3053
2208
2906
9
451
3251
2011
2087
2207
134
2199
450
2767
2204
9
349
1998
968 31
1252
2625
322
390390
485
322
50263
300
31
149
31
42135
43
281
79
80
259
259
80
59
27180
20
Marshall
Kilgore
HallsvilleWaskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
SEPC
UP
BNSF
UP
UP
117
30
87
1933
44
65
33
251
79
80
65 90
45
57232
55
153
295 111
40
38
116
28
52
26
5935
4748 80
3130
57
48
EASTEast
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
OVERPASSES, UNDERPASSES & FRONTAGE ROADSLegend
DALLAS KAUFMAN20
635
460
1389
598740
688
2727
2728
9861392
2965
2932
2757
429
2728
987
1641
2728
740
548
2578
741
429148
87
205 34
557
352
34
175
80
Post OakBend
Talty
TerrellBalch
Springs
Seagoville
Sunnyvale
Dallas
Mesquite
chinsWilmer
Forney
CombineCrandall Oak
Ridge
UP
WEST
49
VAN ZANDT SMITH
Tyler
20
2965
3270
32712908773
16B
3311
2422
16
858
2911
2015
724
757
279
778857
90
3056
857
1504
858
1805
1002
849
1653
1795
1652
1801
26591404
28691255
162015
3227
859
1804
314
1252
2909
2710
16
1995
773
1253
1255
17
1651
47
14
16
564
155
198
155
24319
64
110
271
69
80
BigSandy
Mineola
Saline
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Gladew
UP
UP
UP
CENTRAL
LO
UI
SI
AN
A
HARRISONGREGGSMITH20
259G57
2205
220411862204
26852879
2983
2963
33792605
2276
968
3272
449
16
3053
2206
451
2906
2011
1845
3251
2208
9
2767
2087
2207
2199
134
2275
450
9
349
1998
31
968
1252
2625
322
156
390390
322
48563
502300
31
31
149
42135
43
281
79
80
259
259
59
271
80
Marshall
Kilgore
Hallsville
Waskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
U
SEPC
UP
BNSF
UP
EAST10/1 /2013
0 5 102.5Miles Source: TxDOT RHiNo Data (2012); Jacobs; Google Maps
Central
West
East
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties
Interchange-Related Crossings
Frontage Roads*
Non-Interchange Crossings
* All frontage roads allow two-way traffic except segments in Dallas County and in Terrell
Frontage RoadsEastbound 58.0
Westbound 58.4 Main Lanes 156.0
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
SPEED LIMITSLegend
1392 986
1390
429
2728
2728
548
3039
2932
2757
2965
1389
740 1641
2728987
2727
741
2578
429
148
UV87UV205
UV243
UV34
UV557
UV34
£�175
£�80§̈¦635
§̈¦20
Post OakBend
Talty
TerrellBalchSprings
Seagoville
Dallas
Mesquite
hins
Wilmer
Forney
KaufmanCombine
CrandallOak
Ridge
K A U F M A NK A U F M A ND A L L A SD A L L A S
UP
WEST
110
Loop 281 SE
FM 2087SH 31SH 42
LO
UI
SI
AN
AT
EX
AS
2685
2205
20121639
2879
2983
3379
29631186
3272 2605
96816
2275
2276
2206
1845
3053
2208
2906
9
451
3251
2011
2087
2207
134
2199
450
2767
2204
9
349
1998
96831
1252
2625
UV322
UV156
UV390
UV390
UV485
UV322
UV502UV63
UV300
UV31
UV149
UV31
UV42UV135
UV43
UV281
£�80
£�79
£�80
£�259
£�259
£�80
£�59
£�271£�80
§̈¦20
Marshall
Kilgore
Hallsville
Waskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
SEPC
UP
BNSF
UP
UP
EAST
US 69
346
49
Tyler
2965
3270
3271
2908773
16B
3311
2422
16
858
2911
2015
724
757
279
778857
90
3056
857
1504
858
1805
1002
849
1653
1795
1652
1801
26591404
28691255
162015
3227
859
1804
314
1252
2909
2710
16
1995
773
1253
1255
17
1651
47
14
16
UV564
UV155
UV198
UV155
UV243
UV19
UV64 UV110
£�271
£�69
£�80
§̈¦20
BigSandy
Mineola
Saline
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Glade
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
UP
CENTRALCentral
West
East
*maximum mph according to RHiNo Data 2011
Speed Limit*
75655545 or less
Miles per hour.
70
Crash Hotspots
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties
0 5 102.5Miles
¯
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
INTERCHANGE ANALYSISLegend
""
""
""
""
"" "
" ""
"" " "
"
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
"" "
" ""
"""
""
""
""
""
""
""
1392 986688429
3039
2728
2728
2932
1389
2757
2965
548
1641740
2728987
2727
741
2578
429
148
UV87
UV205 UV34
UV557
UV34
£�175
£�80§̈¦635
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
Post OakBend
Talty
TerrellBalchSprings
Seagoville
Dallas
Mesquite
hins
Wilmer
Forney
KaufmanCombine
CrandallOak
Ridge
K A U F M A NK A U F M A ND A L L A SD A L L A S
UP
WEST
""
"
""
""
""
""
""
"" "
""
"
""
"" "
" ""
"" "
""
"
""
""
" ""
""
""
"" "
""
"""
"""
""
"" "
" ""
"" "
"""
""
""
LO
UI
SI
AN
A
£�259G
1639
1997
2205
26852879
2275
2983
11862204
3379
2963
757
449
26053272
2276
968
2206
757
3053
2275
16
2906
451
1845
2011
2208
9
2204
3251
20872207
2199
2767
134
450
9
349
1998
968 31
12522625
UV156
UV390UV390
UV322
UV485 UV63UV502
UV300
UV31
UV31
UV149
UV42
UV135
UV43
UV281
£�79
£�80
£�259
£�259
£�59
£�271
£�80
§̈¦20
§̈¦20 §̈¦20
Marshall
Kilgore
Waskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H
UP
BNSF
UP
UP
EAST
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
"" "
"
""
""
""
"
"""
""
""
""
""
""
""
"
"
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
"" "
"
""
1861316
3270
16B
2908773
3311
3271
3056
2422
16
778
2911
2015
857
1504
1801
724
90
757
1002
857
1795
279
858
1805
849
1255
1653
1652
2869
1404
2659
859
16
3227
1804
2015
1252
314
2909
2710
16
858
1253
17
1995
773
1255
1651
47
14
16
UV564
UV155
UV155
UV243
UV198
UV19
UV64
UV110
£�271
£�69
£�80§̈¦20
§̈¦20
§̈¦20
BigSandy
Mineola
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
CantonGlade
V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T
S M I T HS M I T H
UP
UP
CENTRAL
Split Diamond InterchangeHayden Rd/CR 3442
Split Diamond InterchangeFM 773/ FM 16
Central
West
East
0 2.5 51.25Miles ¯
Interchange Rating" A: Excellent
" B: Meets Requirements
" C: Marginally Acceptable
" D: Below Minimum Standards
IH 20 Study Corridor
Crash Hotspots
Railroads
City
IH-20 Project Counties
WestboundEntrance
Eastbound Exit
WestboundExit
EastboundEntrance
Ramp Rating
Source: Jacobs.
Rating Entrance Ramps Exit Ramps Total RampsA 72 73 145B 11 13 24C 17 17 34D 14 15 29N/A 8 10 18
62122Total 128 250
Total Interchanges
KAUFMAN
DALLAS
VAN ZANDT
SMITH GREGG
HARRISONWEST
CENTRAL EAST
20 20
2059
8069
80179
80
271
Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
FRONTAGE ROADSLegend
!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !
!! ! !!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
DALLAS KAUFMAN§̈¦20
§̈¦635
460
1389
598
740
688
2727
2728
9861392
2965
2932
2757
429
2728
987
1641
2728
740
548
2578
741
429148
UV87
UV205 UV34
UV557
UV352
UV34
£�175
£�80
Post OakBend
Talty
TerrellBalch
Springs
Seagoville
Sunnyvale
Dallas
Mesquite
hinsWilmer
Forney
CombineCrandall Oak
Ridge
UP
WEST
!! !
! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !
!!!!
! !
!
!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!!
!!
LO
UI
SI
AN
A
HARRISONGREGGSMITH§̈¦20
£�259G57
2205
220411862204
26852879
2983
2963
33792605
2276
968
3272
449
16
3053
2206
451
2906
2011
1845
3251
2208
9
2767
2087
2207
2199
134
2275
450
9
349
1998
31
968
1252
2625
UV322
UV156
UV43
UV390UV390
UV322
UV485 UV63
UV502UV300
UV31
UV31
UV149
UV42UV135
UV43
UV281
£�79
£�80
£�259
£�259
£�59
£�271
£�80
Marshall
Kilgore
Hallsville
Waskom
Longview
WhiteOak
Scottsville
Lakeport
Easton
Gladewater ClarksvilleCity
WarrenCity
UP
SEPC
UP
BNSF
UP
EAST
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
! !
!
!!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
! ! !!! !!
! !! !
! !49
VAN ZANDT SMITH
Tyler
§̈¦20
2965
3270
32712908773
16B
3311
2422
16
858
2911
2015
724
757
279
778857
90
3056
857
1504
858
1805
1002
849
1653
1795
1652
1801
26591404
28691255
162015
3227
859
1804
314
1252
2909
2710
16
1995
773
1253
1255
17
1651
47
14
16
UV564
UV155
UV198
UV155
UV243UV19
UV64
UV110
£�271
£�69
£�80
BigSandy
Mineola
GrandSaline
Winona
Tyler
Hawkins
Lindale
Van
Hideaway
Canton
Glade
UP
UP
UP
CENTRALCentral
West
East
0 5 102.5Miles ¯
No Frontage Roads
Railroads
I-20 Study Area Counties
Interchange-Related Crossings
Frontage Roads*
Non-Interchange Crossings
* All frontage roads allow two-way traffic except segments in Dallas County and in Terrell
Length (Miles)Frontage Roads
Eastbound 58.0 Westbound 58.4
Main Lanes 156.0
Source: TxDOT RHiNo Data (2012); Jacobs; Google Maps
DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
TIMELINE OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
July 2013
� Advisory Committee Kick-off & Study Introduction
February 2014
� Prioritize Goals and Objectives
� Identify Potential Projects
� Members begin Initial Public Outreach
January 2014
� Discuss Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ)Considerations
� Review & Finalize Public Outreach Tools
October 2013
� Develop Objectives� Identify/Review
Constraints,Features, Concerns & Future Considerations
� Discuss Public Outreach Tools
April 2014
� MembersContinue Initial Public Outreach
� Conference Call to update on OutreachActivities
May 2014
� MembersComplete Initial Public Outreach
� Evaluate & PrioritizeProjects
� Review Summary of Public Input
August 2014
� Review Draft Corridor Plan
� Prepare for Draft Corridor Plan Public Outreach
Sept.-Oct. 2014
� Hold Open House(s)
November 2014
� Review Public Input Received at Open House(s)
� Finalize Corridor Plan
December 2014
� Presentation to Commission
� Members help spread the word that a Final Corridor Plan is available on the website
We are here:
Indicates Committee Meeting
Attachment 4 Objectives Prioritization
Survey Responses
I-20 East Texas Advisory CommitteeGoals and Objectives Prioritization
The following survey will serve to help the I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee to prioritize the goals and objectives for the corridor study. Please rank the following objectives under each goal in order of most important to least important. The results ofthis survey will be discussed at the next Advisory Committee in Mesquite on Feb. 18.
To begin ranking the objectives you have two options under each goal: Select a number next to the objective OR Click and drag the objective to place them in order of importance. Either of these options will adjust the ranking numbers alongside each objective as you make selections.
Thank you for your participation!
1. Please rank the following objectives in order from most important (1) to least important (6) in regards to the following Advisory Committee goal:
INVOLVE LOCAL COMMUNITIES
___ Outline potential safety impacts to properties along or near the I-20 corridor (e.g.
residential, mix use, commercial, etc.).
___ Request right-of-way (ROW) donations to include room for passenger rail.
___ Establish framework for transportation reinvestment zones (TRZ) along I-20 to
assist in funding all modes and adopt TRZ’s locally.
___ Create transportation plans that compliment local development plans
___ Build public-private partnerships with landowners; developers, etc.
___ Ensure constant communication with community members and stakeholders.
2. Please rank the following objectives in order from most important (1) to least important (4) in regards to the following Advisory Committee goal:
CONSIDER CURRENT AND FUTURE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ___ Accommodate all needed forms of transportation using existing I-20 geometry
and ROW.
___ Consider the impact of I-20 planning on East Texas Hour Glass at Toll 49
___ Plan for I-69 interchange near Marshall
___ Consider US 80 and 175 in addition to the I-20 corridor.
3. Please rank the following objectives in order from most important (1) to
least important (10) in regards to the following Advisory Committee goal:
IMPROVE SAFETY ___ Reconstruct access ramps to current standards
___ Construct truck-only lanes.
___ Improve road surface on sections rated fair or poor
___ Implement access management techniques to reduce the number of driveways
and wide/open area driveways in close proximity to exit and entrance ramps.
___ Add barriers to medians less than 80 feet wide including barriers from IH635 to
Kaufman County line.
___ Improve access across median barriers for law enforcement and safety
equipment.
___ Raise overpasses to safe height
___ Additional lanes in congested areas on I-20
___ Construct one-way service roads, to divert traffic in event of I-20 closings.
___ Review of speed limits and length of exitways
4. Please rank the following objectives in order from most important (1) to least important (6) in regards to the following Advisory Committee goal:
REDUCE CONGESTION AND ENHANCE MOBILITY FOR TRAVELERS AND FREIGHT ___ Consider rail hubs as connectors to urban areas
___ Coordination of improvements where municipalities are updating their
infrastructure/thoroughfare plans to complement this study effort
___ Consider modified freight carrier behavior (new speed limits, schedules, etc.)
___ Build relationships with passenger service providers including plans for service
expansion and diversification.
___ Ask State government for support and funding alternatives and consider Public-
private partnerships.
___ Widen bridges
5. Please rank the following objectives in order from most important (1) to least important (4) in regards to the following Advisory Committee goal:
ENHANCE AIR QUALITY
___ Reduce idling in case of accident or lane closures.
___ Create high occupancy lanes (HOL) to alleviate congestion
___ Develop incentives to direct truck traffic onto Toll 49
___ Construct continuous one-way frontage roads with priority to high volume/high
accident areas
6. Please list any additional comments to add to the goals and objectives
of the I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee below:
7. Name: ________________________________________________
Responses were received from 16 members of the Advisory Committee. They were received prior to or during the meeting, computed and scored to help prioritize previously established objectives. Results from these, for each of the committee’s goals, are as follow:
!" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" '&!" #!!"
()*+,-."/0*.-12+"324.*5",6/27*3""
8.9).3*":,;<*=04=>25"?8(@A"B0-210-3""
C3*2D+,3<"4:26.>0:E"40:"F8G"2+0-;"H=#!""2B0/*"F8GI3"+072++5"
J:.2*."*:2-3/0:*210-"/+2-3"*<2*"706/+.6.-*"+072+"B.K.+0/6.-*"/+2-3"
L),+B"/)D+,7=/:,K2*."/2:*-.:3<,/3""
C-3):."70-3*2-*"7066)-,7210-">,*<"7066)-,*5"6.6D.:3"2-B"3*2E.<0+B.:3M"
!"#$
!%&$
!'($
!"($
!)"$
!%#$
*+,-$.!$$/012314$32563$527780/9/4:$
!" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" '&!"
())*++*,-./"-00"1//,/,"2*3+4"*2".3-145*3.-6*1"74819"/:84619";<#!"9/*+/.3="-1,">?@A"
B*148,/3".C/"8+5-)."*2";<#!"50-11819"*1"D*00"$E"
F0-1"2*3";<%E"81./3)C-19/"1/-3"G-34C-00"
B*148,/3"HI"&!"-1,"'JK"81"-,,86*1".*".C/";<#!")*338,*3A"
!"#$
!%#$
!&#$
!''$
()*+$,-$./012345$.655407$803$967654$:6;72:/38;$75801</57872/0$04431$
!" K!" '!!" 'K!" #!!" #K!"
>/)*14.37)."-))/44"3-+54".*")733/1."4.-1,-3,4"
B*14.37).".37)L<*10="0-1/4A"
;+53*M/"3*-,"4732-)/"*1"4/)6*14"3-./,"2-83"*3"5**3"
;+50/+/1."-))/44"+-1-9/+/1."./)C18N7/4".*"3/,7)/".C/"17+O/3"*2",38M/P-=4"-1,"
(,,"O-338/34".*"+/,8-14"0/44".C-1"&!"2//."P8,/"81)07,819"O-338/34"23*+";Q%RK".*"
;+53*M/"-))/44"-)3*44"+/,8-1"O-338/34"2*3"0-P"/12*3)/+/1."-1,"4-2/.="/N785+/1.A"
>-84/"*M/35-44/4".*"4-2/"C/89C."
(,,86*1-0"0-1/4"81")*19/4./,"-3/-4"*1";<#!""
B*14.37)."*1/<P-="4/3M8)/"3*-,4S".*",8M/3.".3-T)"81"/M/1."*2";<#!")0*48194A"
>/M8/P"*2"45//,"08+8.4"-1,"0/19.C"*2"/:8.P-=4"
-#!$
!=&$
!=%$
!%!$
!%!$
!>&$
!=-$
!?&$
!=!$
!&!$
()*+$,>$2:<5/@4$18947A$
!" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" '&!" #!!"
B*148,/3"3-80"C7O4"-4")*11/).*34".*"73O-1"-3/-4"
B**3,81-6*1"*2"8+53*M/+/1.4"PC/3/"+718)85-086/4"-3/"75,-619".C/83"8123-4.37).73/U.C*3*79C2-3/"50-14".*")*+50/+/1.".C84"4.7,="/V*3."
B*148,/3"+*,8W/,"23/89C.")-338/3"O/C-M8*3"X1/P"45//,"08+8.4S"4)C/,70/4S"/.)AY"
Z780,"3/0-6*14C854"P8.C"5-44/19/3"4/3M8)/"53*M8,/34"81)07,819"50-14"2*3"4/3M8)/"/:5-148*1"-1,",8M/348W)-6*1A"
(4L"I.-./"9*M/31+/1."2*3"4755*3."-1,"271,819"-0./31-6M/4"-1,")*148,/3"F7O08)<538M-./"5-3.1/34C854A"
@8,/1"Z38,9/4"
!"'$
!""$
!&=$
!="$
!%=$
!--$
()*+$,&$5436.4$./0(4172/0$803$40B80.4$:/C2;27A$9/5$758@4;451$803$9542(B7$
!" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" '&!"
>/,7)/"8,0819"81")-4/"*2"-))8,/1."*3"0-1/")0*473/4A""
B3/-./"C89C"*))75-1)="0-1/4"XQ?[Y".*"-00/M8-./")*19/46*1"
\/M/0*5"81)/16M/4".*",83/).".37)L".3-T)"*1.*"D*00"$E"
B*14.37).")*1617*74"*1/<P-="23*1.-9/"3*-,4"P8.C"538*38.=".*"C89C"M*07+/UC89C"-))8,/1."-3/-4"
!%'$
!%'$
!>"$
!%"$
()*+$,'$40B80.4$825$D68;27A$
Attachment 5
Early Successes for IH20 East Texas
Corridor
1
Early Successes for IH 20 East Texas Corridor
Potential Capital Maintenance Solutions by Goal Theme
Need Identified Implementation and Funding Ideas
Involve Local Communities
• Visioning along the corridor of potential impact to land uses immediately adjacent and/or 2 mile radius as it relates to safety
• Transportation plans must compliment local development plans
• Relationships with city, county and regional governments to build private partnerships with landowners, developers, etc.
• Ensure MPO and RPO representation
• If requested by Advisory Committee, DFW MPO will conduct public outreach to refine project needs and match the needs to available funding options for IH 20 in DFW region.
• Invite stakeholders and encourage their participation in the process
Consider Current and Future Multi-Modal Transportation Needs
• Conceptual plan: include rail
• IH 20 geometry and ROW must accommodate future passenger rail
• Focus on building a network throughout the corridor utilizing all forms of transportation and provide planning
• IH 20 corridor does not mean IH 20 only. Need to consider US 80 and US 175 as part of the corridor
• Investigate light rail between Dallas and the Louisiana State Line utilizing IH 20 ROW
• Higher speed passenger rail in IH 20 ROW?
• Study role of Gaming in Shreveport if Texas law is changed
• Study role of Union Pacific Rail Corridor; the RTC’s mobility plan identifies the Union Pacific as the best rail corridor option (at grade high speed rail)
• Suggest that first rail project should be outside the DFW region to show early success
2
Reduce Congestion and Enhance Mobility
• Extend service roads in areas to alleviate traffic on IH 20
• Coordination of thoroughfare plans where municipalities are updating their infrastructure/thoroughfare plans to complement the IH 20 study effort
• Construct truck-only lanes
• Widen bridges
• Add frontage road lanes
• Widen from four to six lanes
• Consider utilizing HB1/Rainy Day Funds if election is successful
Enhance Air Quality • Continuous one-way frontage roads with priority to high
volume/high accident areas
• Prioritize locations of need and submit in next Highway
Safety Improvement Program
• In DFW region, request STP-MM funds of the RTC
3
Improve Safety • Reconstruct access ramps to current standards
• Construct truck-only lanes
• Improve road surface to sections rated fair or poor
• Access management techniques implementation: reduce the number of driveways and wide/open area driveways in close proximity to exit and entrance ramps
• Add barriers to medians less than 80 feet in width
• Raise overpasses to safe height across entire corridor
• One-way service roads
• Safety barriers – need better law enforcement access across barriers: allow law enforcement and safety equipment to cross barrier
• Review speed limits and exit ramp length
• Barrier from Kaufman County line to IH 635
• Focus on access roads update; concrete blocks on narrower parts of road
• Consider utilizing HB1/Rainy Day Funds if election is
successful
• Prioritize locations of need and consider utilizing HB1/Rainy Day Funds if election is successful
• Utilize existing maintenance/rehab funds to implement
• Fully utilize TxDOT’s Access Management Policy
• Submit in TxDOT’s next Highway Safety Improvement Program
• Identify affected bridges, increase height when bridges are reconstructed (Bridge Program)
• Identify specific locations of need and Consider utilizing HB1/Rainy Day Funds if election is successful
• Identify obstacles to implementation; Utilize existing maintenance/rehab funds to implement or submit in next Highway Safety Improvement Program
• Submit in next Highway Safety Improvement Program
• In DFW region, request STP-MM or CMAQ funds of the RTC
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting January 6, 2014 1 of 4
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting
Monday, January 6, 2014, 1:00 p.m. Grand Hyatt Hotel, San Antonio, Texas
DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY
Name Organization
Members Present
Judge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg County
Judge Joel Baker Smith County
Mayor John Monaco City of Mesquite
Michael Morris NCTCOG
Gerardo Cuaron (on behalf of Mark McDaniel) Tyler MPO
Heather Nick Tyler MPO
Karen Owen, Director Longview MPO
Judge Hugh Taylor Harrison County
Judge Bruce Wood Kaufman County
Mayor Robert Nelson (on phone) City of Lindale
Members Not Present
Mayor Harold Magill City of Seagoville
Mayor Darren Rozell City of Forney
Mayor Barbara Bass City of Tyler
Mayor Jay Dean City of Longview
Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall
Judge Clay Jenkins Dallas County
Judge Rhita Koches Van Zandt County
Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs
Mayor Hal Richards City of Terrell
Linda Ryan Thomas, Director NETRMA
Celia Boswell NETRMA
Gary C. Thomas DART
To view the complete meeting sign‐in sheets, see Attachment 1.
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) Make Committee members aware of strategies and efforts employed by the Alliance for I‐69 Texas to enhance awareness of the I‐69 project; 2) provide members with in‐depth information on Transportation Reinvestment Zones and examples already in place in Texas; 3) review drafts of Public Involvement Materials to be used in the next stage of the process and 4) plan and set priorities for future meetings. Printed documents were made available to all Committee Members and attendees to follow during the meeting. The agenda, presentation and Public Involvement Materials are included in Attachments 2 through 3. Welcome/Introductions: Marc Williams (TxDOT) welcomed the Committee Members and began the meeting by requesting all attendees to introduce themselves. Safety Briefing: Given the time constraint and easily readable configuration of the venue, Marc Williams (TxDOT)
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting January 6, 2014 2 of 4
deferred the safety briefing in favor of the first agenda item. Alliance for I‐69 Texas Overview: Judge John Thompson (Polk County: Guest Speaker) gave an overview of the lessons learned throughout the process of developing I‐69 in East Texas. Among his recommendations and main observations were the following:
A non‐governmental group to support the project allows the goals and objectives for the corridor to remain consistent through the process and helps further the needs of the corridor among different government levels.
By not being eligible for the Interstate Highway Construction Program, funding became the main concern in terms of transportation development.
TxDOT’s shift in strategy from a centrally managed planning process to a more inclusive use of a Statewide Committee and six local segment committees was critical to the development of local support for I‐69.
He considers a group outside of TxDOT essential in advancing committee priorities at the State and Federal level.
I‐69 currently has projects completed or under construction totaling $742 million.
The ultimate success of a large corridor is dependent on the development of individual pieces, and the members need to encourage/celebrate the progress of even the smallest piece of the whole project.
Having large, private donors interested in economic development fostered by the project, facilitates the non‐governmental group efforts.
Existing Legislation can present particular challenges. Lobbying to streamline the process for designating sections of new Interstate accelerated the development of I‐69
TRZ Overview by TxDOT staff: Julie Rabeux (TxDOT) explained the basic definition and components of a Transportation Reinvestment Zone and its differences with similar financing schemes like Tax Incentive Zones and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones. She also stated it is TxDOT’s goal to provide assistance to interested parties.
As part of the presentation, Julie explained the steps local authorities must follow in order to set up a TRZ in their communities. She also emphasized the recent changes made by the 2011 legislature to the TRZ rules which increase flexibility through provisions to allow the combination of resources from multiple communities and jurisdictions as well as time extensions based on performance. For other particular questions Julie encouraged the members to get in contact with TxDOT’s Debt Management Office. To review the complete presentation on TRZ Financing, see Attachment 2. One Advisory Committee member inquired about selecting and managing the TRZ boundaries. Julie Rabeux expressed the need to maintain a balance in terms of the amount of land included in the zone. Also she mentioned it is important to carefully select the parcels included within a TRZ boundary based on revenue potential and avoiding tax exempt properties. Another Advisory Committee member inquired as to what would happen if the TRZ is unable to pay back its commitments in the time stipulated when originally established. Julie Rabeux expressed that fortunately that hasn’t been a concern yet, but reliable feasibility studies and long time periods are vital to prevent such scenarios. Also as previously mentioned, the possibility of extension has been
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting January 6, 2014 3 of 4
recently addressed by the legislature. Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin III mentioned examples of successful TRZ structures in the state and encouraged members to develop innovative proposals for Texas Transportation. Julie Rabeux supported his statement by elaborating on existing TRZs. One of the Advisory Committee members proposed the creation of a strategic project review plan for prioritization of projects. He expressed his belief that the pursuit of innovation can facilitate the lobbying of funding for transportation projects above the local level. He also argued for the necessity of mapping transportation needs along the corridor. Smith County TRZ: Judge Joel Baker (Smith County) reported on the progress of approving a new TRZ around Toll Road 49 that covers roughly 2 miles of I‐20 within Smith County. He mentioned that although the crafting of legal documents has been completed, the approval has been postponed for 4 to 6 months in order to better inform the public on the meaning and implications of the TRZ. Judge Baker assured the committee that even though Smith County is moving forward with the establishment of a TRZ, they are willing to expand or modify it to accommodate I‐20 East Corridor priorities and needs. Public Outreach: Susan Howard asked the Committee Members to review the provided materials and express any concerns about them. Comments and observations should be forwarded to her or Caroline Love before January 20th. She also encouraged members to let TxDOT know if there is need for bilingual materials in their communities. Once changes are made and materials are approved, Committee members can begin distributing them among their constituents. Susan reiterated the importance of public involvement and urged members to come forward if they believe an important form of outreach had been overlooked. Open Comments: In reference to additional means of identifying project funding, Judge Bruce Wood (Kaufman County) announced a successful $56 million bond election meant for transportation improvements in November with an approval of 66% of voters. Commissioner Austin encouraged members to continue to express their support for I‐20 since the corridor plays a vital role in the advancement of economic development in Texas. He also argued for the need to look at transportation improvements from a broad perspective and consider how they will connect with corridors and initiatives in other states. Wrap Up: Roger Beall (TxDOT) discussed topics to be included in upcoming meetings. Committee members agreed upcoming meeting should include discussion on rail possibilities, the Cotton Belt Corridor Innovative Finance Initiative and locations for specific improvement projects. The possibility of scheduling the next Advisory Committee Meeting in February was also brought up, to which members
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting January 6, 2014 4 of 4
agreed. TxDOT will identify possible dates and take care of the scheduling. Mayor John Monaco (Mesquite) offered to host the next meeting and the committee approved. Roger Beall (TxDOT) invited members to provide any other comments in regards to the corridor study or the topics already discussed during the meeting. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:
Provide existing right‐of‐way maps and data at next meeting
Present results of current efforts to define feasibility and requirements for rail throughout the corridor
Review comments and create final public outreach materials for distribution
Prepare presentation about lessons learned from the Cotton Belt Innovative Finance Initiative and rail possibilities
Schedule next meeting for February Attachments:
1. Advisory Committee Sign‐In Sheets 2. Meeting Agenda and TRZ Presentation 3. Public Involvement Materials
Meeting Staff: Marc Williams, Caroline Love, Susan Howard, Roger Beall, Julie Rabeux, Tim Juarez and Lindsey Kimmitt (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, June San Miguel, Chris Lazaro, Nair Barrios and Kevin Conner (Jacobs)
Attachment 1 Advisory Committee Meeting Sign-‐In
Sheets
Attachment 2 Meeting Agenda and
Presentation
I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee
Monday, January 6, 2014, 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM Grand Hyatt Hotel, Room: Travis C/D (3rd Floor) 600 E. Market Street, San Antonio, Texas 78205
Call-in: 866-637-1408 Conference Code: 312 746 6422#
Meeting #3 - Agenda
Welcome/Registration 1:00 – 1:10 PM Welcome & Introductions Judge Bill Stoudt, Gregg County
Safety Briefing Marc Williams, TxDOT
1:10 – 1:30 PM Alliance for I-69 Texas Judge John Thompson
1:30 – 2:15 PM Overview of TRZ Julie Rabeux, TxDOT
Smith County TRZ efforts Judge Joel Baker, Smith County
Round table discussion on TRZ along I-20 Members
2:15 – 2:25 PM I-20 Public Outreach Tools Susan Howard, TxDOT
2:25 – 2:30 PM Wrap-up and Next Steps Roger Beall, TxDOT
2:30 PM Adjourn
12/30/2013
1
TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONES
How communities can leverage local funds for transportation projects
BACKGROUND:WHAT IS A TRZ ?
12/30/2013
2
What is a Transportation Reinvestment Zone
Transportation Reinvestment Zones are a tool that were created in the 2007 legislative session (Senate Bill 1266) as a value capture method for transportation projects where VC revenues are set aside to finance a project
House Bill 563 (2011) – introduced significant changes that increased implementation flexibility. Previously tied to Pass Through projects, but have steadily gained interest since the tool became more flexible.
Statute Governing Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs): – Transportation Code Chapter 222 Sections 106-110
What exactly is a TRZ: – A TRZ is a specific contiguous zone around a planned transportation project
that is established as a method to facilitate capture of the property tax increment arising from the planned project
Currently there are four types of TRZ’s: County, Municipal, Port Authority and Navigation Districts, and County Energy
3
Value Capture Mechanism
What is a Transportation Reinvestment Zone
4
Captured Appraised Value
Appraised Property Value
TRZ Life (YRS)
Tax Increment Base = Appraised Value in Base Year Tax
Increment Base
Tax Increment Account
General Fund
12/30/2013
3
Hidalgo County TRZ No 2
5Template with layouts
What is a Transportation Reinvestment Zone
Why use a TRZ and how to find the appropriate project: – A TRZ can be used in conjunction with other financing mechanism to fund a
transportation project.
– Allows a community to capture both existing economic growth as well as expected growth generated from the transportation project.
Why haven’t they been used more?– Has only been detached from Pass Through Toll project since 2011
– Communities are familiar with TIRZ/TIF
What’s the difference with a TIRZ– TIRZ/TIF typically used to support non-transportation tools, primarily seen in urban
areas
– TIF/TIRZ cannot be used at the County level
– A TRZ does not require a board
6
12/30/2013
4
What should be included/considered in a TRZ feasibility analysis
The following are recommended items to include and consider in the preparation a TRZ capacity analysis:
– Clear overview of the zone, map, zone delineation, parcel listing (if available)
– List of Participating local governments considering a TRZ for the project (city, county, etc.)
– Assumptions of the study: • The percentage of the property tax value increment in the Zone that is under consideration
by the local government • Number of years included in the analysis• Assumed base year of establishment of the TRZ
– Parcel analysis, including zoning types considered and current breakdown of zoning included in the potential TRZ (e.g: residential, commercial etc.)
– The netting out of existing properties that would not contribute to the revenues (ie: other TIRZ, TIF, abatement agreements, or tax-exempt property)
– 30 years of revenue estimates, including a cash flow table in both nominal and NPV figures
– Historical property value growth trend analysis, based on Central Appraisal District data
– Multiple Economic growth models, i.e. pessimistic, base and optimistic revenue estimate scenarios
7
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
12/30/2013
5
TRZ Implementation Process
9
InitiationZone
Formulation Adoption Implementation
InitiationZone
FormulationAdoption Implementation
Monitoring and
Evaluation
TRZ Implementation Process
10
InitiationZone
Formulation Adoption Implementation
Initiation:
- Project identification
- Preliminary feasibility analysis/ Research of property values under consideration
- Developing stakeholder relations
Initiation
12/30/2013
6
TRZ Implementation Process
11
InitiationZone
Formulation Adoption Implementation
Zone Formulation:
- Define boundaries, zones, parcels
- Establish benchmark year for tax increment collection
- Provide 60 day notice
- Refine feasibility study
Zone Formulation
TRZ Implementation Process
12
InitiationZone
Formulation Adoption Implementation
Adoption:
- Public hearings
- Ordinance (Municipal TRZ)
or
- Order of the Commissioner’s Court (County TRZ)
Adoption
12/30/2013
7
TRZ Implementation Process
13
InitiationZone
Formulation Adoption Implementation
Implementation:
- Determination of TRZ financing aspects
- Establish mechanisms for funding/partnerships (Inter-local agreements, partnerships with RMA’s etc.)
Implementation
TRZ Implementation Process
14
InitiationZone
Formulation Adoption Implementation
Monitoring and Evaluation:
- Establish monitoring of TRZ to optimize revenue and payment streams- Dissolution of TRZ :
- December 31 of the year of compliance with contractual requirement or
- December 31 of the 10th year after establishment if not used for the purpose
Monitoring and Evaluation
12/30/2013
8
FINANCING
Financing
Can a TRZ finance a transportation project in its entirety?
A local government with a created TRZ can use the captured funds directly toward a transportation project, as a pledge for a method of financing (for cities and ports that could include bond issuance)
TxDOT State Infrastructure Bank Loans– The SIB program allows borrowers to access capital funds at or lower-than-market
interest rates.
– Work eligible for the program’s funding includes: planning and preliminary studies; feasibility, economical and environmental studies; right of way acquisition; surveying; appraisal and testing; utility relocation; engineering and design; construction; inspection and construction engineering.
16
12/30/2013
9
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Information
To learn more about options for Local Governments, visit:
www.TxDOT.gov
Julie Rabeux
512-964-8690
18
12/30/2013
10
THANK YOU
Attachment 3
Public Involvement Materials
Comments
1
December 12, 2013
Fact Sheet (DRAFT)
I-20 East
Texas
Corridor
Study
IH 20 provides an important east-west connection for travel and trade in Texas. As the interstate system ages and population and trade increases, it is necessary to assess the current safety and capacity needs and plan for the future. A Corridor Assessment study will be undertaken to identify rural transportation needs along IH 20 from the Dallas/Fort Worth Metropolitan Area to the Texas/Louisiana State Line.
December 2013 HOW TO GET AND STAY INVOLVED…
Visit our website at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/ statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
The study will:
Assess current corridor conditions and identify short, intermediate and long-term needs. The needs assessment will focus on addressing safety, congestion, and system preservation concerns.
Identify opportunities for addressing needs related to vehicular, freight and alternative transportation modes.
Consider funding requirements for implementation of potential improvements, including alternative/non-traditional funding strategies.
Outline next steps for TxDOT and other transportation stakeholders to consider advancing project development activities for the corridor.
Phase 2 - Lubbock Outer Route Study (currently underway in 2013) will:
Determine a route location within the corridors studied during the feasibility study.
Include detailed investigations of traffic, socio-economic, environmental,
Overview
Scope of Study
2
December 12, 2013
I-20 East
Texas
Corridor
Study
Fact Sheet (DRAFT)
An integral component of this study will be working with public and private stakeholders through an Advisory Committee. The charge of the Committee will be to assist TxDOT in assessing the rural transportation needs along I-20 by providing locally focused input and recommendations. The Committee will provide a valuable avenue for public outreach and input on issues that include:
Rural transportation needs along the I-20 corridor
Local planning issues (development activities, planning/environmental features)
Opportunities for short, intermediate and long-term transportation improvements
Recommendations for addressing freight and alternative transportation modes
Input on the feasibility of potential alternative/non-traditional funding strategies
Recommendations on priorities and next steps for TxDOT and other local stakeholders to consider in advancing project development activities for the corridor
The Advisory Committee will be comprised of individuals representing a cross-section of elected officials and other stakeholders along the corridor. Committee members will include representation from the following:
Counties (Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg, Harrison)
Cities (Balch Springs, Mesquite, Forney, Terrell, Canton, Lindale, Tyler, Longview, Marshall)
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NCTCOG, Tyler, Longview)
North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Other entities could include economic development organizations, business interests and Native American Tribes.
It is anticipated that the Advisory Committee will meet every two months.
Expected study duration is about 18 months.
Advisory Committee
Schedule
Frequently Asked Questions
(DRAFT)
I-20 East
Texas
Corridor
Study
Page | 1 DRAFT December 12, 2013
Want more
information?
Visit our website at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/ statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
What is the I-2O East Texas Corridor Study?
The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study being conducted by TxDOT is focused on evaluating the current safety and capacity needs along the 155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 in Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana state line.
1.
Why is this study important?
The I-20 corridor currently serves as an integral east-west connection for both travel and trade in Texas. As the interstate system ages and trade increases, identifying opportunities for improvement becomes more critical. Assessing the current corridor conditions and identifying future growth potential are important to ensuring this route meets the needs of the region for decades to come.
2.
Who is involved with the study?
A major component of this study is to work directly with public and private stakeholders through an Advisory Committee. The I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee was established in August 2013 by the Texas Transportation Commission to assist TxDOT in assessing the rural transportation needs along I-20 by providing locally focused input and recommendations. This group is currently comprised of 21 elected officials and other stakeholders along the I-20 corridor and includes representatives from:
Counties (Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg, Harrison)
Cities (Balch Springs, Mesquite, Seagoville, Forney, Terrell, Canton, Lindale, Tyler, Longview, Marshall)
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NCTCOG, Tyler, Longview)
North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
In addition to the members of the committee, the Advisory Committee will be working closely with several collaborating partners, including:
Farm Bureau
Native American Tribes
Economic Development Organizations
Private Businesses Interests
Rural Planning Organizations
Freight Rail and Passenger Rail Interest Groups
Transit Interest Groups
3.
Frequently Asked Questions
(DRAFT)
I-20 East
Texas
Corridor
Study
Page | 2 DRAFT December 12, 2013
Want more
information?
Visit our website at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/ statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
What will be reviewed as part of the study?
This study will focus on evaluating safety concerns and capacity needs along the corridor. This could include additional frontage roads, ramp/interchange redesign, improving vertical clearance, and passenger rail alternatives. The purpose of including representatives of all major areas within the corridor is to ensure that a complete view of the needs for the future of the I-20 corridor is considered.
4.
How long will the study last?
The study is expected to be complete in December 2014. .
5.
What areas will be included in the study?
The area included within this study spans 155 miles along I-20 from I-635 in Dallas County to the Texas/Louisiana state line. In some areas, other regional highways or roadways may be included in the study when considering solutions to problems, but the primary focus of this study is along I-20.
6.
What will be the end result of the study?
Ultimately, the result of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study will serve as a guide for TxDOT to begin improvements throughout the corridor by providing a prioritized list of projects as well as possible funding solutions.
7.
How can I participate in the study?
Throughout the 18-month study, we will be updating our website regularly, issuing press releases about important topics, sending out newsletters and creating a Facebook page for you to connect with us through social media. In addition, we will be hosting open houses to gather input on the draft plan. In addition to open houses, you can also submit comments on our website at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
8.
I-20TexCorStu
P
0 Eastxas rridor udy
Page | 1
t
DRAFT D
Talki
Study
Adviso
Publi
December 12,
ing Poi
I‐20 corrtrade in T
18‐mont
Evaluate Texas/Lo
Focus on Identify a
corridor
y Overview
21 membo A
o Co T
Work wit Assist Tx
ory Commit
You can go P
ge
o O
Informato Wo Fo Fo To P
ic Outreach
, 2013
ints (DR
idor is an inteTexas h study to co155‐mile stre
ouisiana Staten current and and prioritize
bers All counties a Dallas
HarrisCities with poTransportatio DART
th other collaDOT with ass
ttee
get involved tPresentationsgroups, electeeconomic devOpen Housestion to be updWebsite updaFact Sheets anFacebook (insTwitter (inserPress Release
h
RAFT)
egral east‐we
onclude in Decetch of I‐20 fre Line future safety
e opportunitie
long the corrs, Kaufman, Vson countiesopulation oveon stakeholdeT, NCTCOG, neaborative partsessing the ru
throughout ts to local goveed officials, cvelopment gr dated and disates (insert linnd FAQs sert Facebookrt Twitter hanes
est connection
cember 2014rom I‐635 in D
y and enhances for improv
ridor represenVan Zandt, Sm
r 15,000 peoers representeetRMA, Longvtners from thural transport
he duration oernments, civhambers of croups
stributed regunk here)
k link here) ndle here)
DRAFT Nov
n for both tra
4 Dallas to the
ed mobility nements along
nted mith, Gregg an
ple ed view MPO, Tyhe community
ation needs
of the studyvic and commommerce, an
ularly via
vember 20, 20
avel and
needs g the
nd
yler MPO y
munity nd
13
I-20 East
Texas
Corridor
Study
Activity Form
Committee Member Name:
Organization or Group Presented To:
Location: Date:
# of Attendees (approximate):
Questions/Comments:
Follow Up Requests:
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at [email protected] or mail to:
Texas Department of Transportation
Attn: Caroline Love 125 East 11
th St.
Austin, TX 78701
Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign-in list, or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity.
Draft: December 12, 2013
I-20 East
Texas
Corridor
Study
LET US HEAR
FROM YOU!
Please provide your comments on the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study.
To submit comments online, please visit our website at ww.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/ i20-east-corridor.html
Comment Card
Please provide your comments below on the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study.
NAME:
EMAIL:
ZIP:
I am employed by TxDOT.
I do business with TxDOT.
I could benefit monetarily from the project or other item about which I am commenting on.
Texas Transportation Code, §201.811(a)(5)
Comments/Questions:
Check any that apply to you:
Join our email list:
12/31/2013
1
I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR STUDYCommunity Presentation
I R
IDE
I-2
0
About the Study
• 18-month study to be complete in December 2014
• Focused on evaluating safety and capacity needs along I-20 through East Texas
• Work with stakeholders to identify and prioritize opportunities for improvement
12/31/2013
2
Study Area
155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 near Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana state line through Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg and Harrison counties
3
Why is this study needed?
• I-20 is an important east-west connection for travel and trade in Texas
• Interstate system is aging and population and trade are increasing
• Assess current safety andcapacity needs and plan forthe future
• Identify rural transportation needs
4
12/31/2013
3
What will be reviewed?
5
SAFETY CONCERN
EXAMPLES
Median barriers
Vertical clearance of underpasses and bridges
Interchange design
Crash hotspots
CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT
EXAMPLES
Additional frontage roads
Additional lanes
Alternate routes
Freight needs
Passenger rail options
Advisory Committee
Assist TxDOT by providing locally focused input and recommendations
Helps provide feedback to TxDOT on issues and concerns to be considered, prioritization of projects needed and possible funding alternatives
Members are made up of 21 elected officials and other key transportation stakeholders (full list on next slide)
Works closely with other key organizations to help provide accurate and well-rounded feedback
6
12/31/2013
4
Advisory Committee Members
7
Entity Member Name TitleDallas County Clay Jenkins County JudgeKaufman County Bruce Wood County JudgeVan Zandt County Rhita Koches County JudgeSmith County Joel Baker County JudgeGregg County Bill Stoudt (Chair) County JudgeHarrison County Hugh Taylor County JudgeCity of Balch Springs Dr. Carrie Gordan MayorCity of Mesquite John Monaco MayorCity of Seagoville Harold Magill MayorCity of Forney Darren Rozell MayorCity of Terrell Hal Richards MayorCity of Canton Richard W. Lawrence MayorCity of Lindale Robert Nelson MayorCity of Tyler Barbara Bass MayorCity of Longview Jay Dean MayorCity of Marshall Ed Smith MayorDallas Area Rapid Transit Gary C. Thomas PresidentNCTCOG MPO Michael Morris Director of TransportationNETRMA Linda Ryan Thomas Chair/Chair, RailTyler MPO Barbara Holly MPO DirectorLongview MPO Karen Owen MPO Director
8
July 2013
• Advisory Committee Kick-off & Study Introduction
October 2013
• Advisory Committee to Identify/Review Constraints, Community Features, Concerns & Future Considerations
January 2014
• Advisory Committee to Review Traffic, Crash & Geometry Analysis and Review Conceptual I-20 Improvement Strategies
• Public outreach begins
March 2014
• Advisory Committee to Identify Potential Projects
• Public outreach continues
April 2014
• Initial public outreach ends
May 2014
• Advisory Committee to Review Summary of Public Input, Evaluate & Prioritize Projects
August 2014
• Advisory Committee to Review Draft Corridor Plan
Sept.-Oct. 2014
• Open Houses to Discuss Draft Corridor Plan with Public
November 2014
• Advisory Committee to Review Public Input Received at Open House(s) & Finalize Corridor Plan
December 2014
• Presentation to Texas Transportation Commission
• Final Corridor Study Plan Available on Project Website
Indicates Committee Meeting
Timeline of Proposed Activities
START
FINISH
12/31/2013
5
Stay Informed
9
Website updateswww.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
Fact SheetsEmailed to the mailing list, posted on website, available at outreach events, available at Advisory Committee member offices
Open housesCurrently planned for Fall 2014
Email notificationsSign up to join the mailing list on our website
Facebookwww.facebook.com/I20EastTexas
Twitter@I20EastTexas
Questions and Comments
QUESTIONS?
Comments can also be submitted online at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
10
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013 1 of 9
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 10:30 a.m. Terrell Municipal Airport, Terrell, Texas
FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
Name Organization Members Present
Judge Clay Jenkins Dallas CountyJudge Bruce Wood Kaufman County Judge Rhita Koches Van Zandt County Judge Joel Baker Smith CountyJudge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg CountyJudge Hugh Taylor Harrison County Jerry Dittman (alternate for Mayor John Monaco) City of Mesquite Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs Mayor Hal Richards City of TerrellCindy Malouf (alternate for Mayor Richard Lawrence) City of Canton Mayor Robert Nelson City of Lindale Kevin Feldt (alternate for Michael Morris) NCTCOG
Michael Miles (alternate for Gary C. Thomas) DART
Linda Ryan Thomas, Director NETRMA
Celia Boswell NETRMA
Barbara Holly, Director Tyler MPO
Karen Owen, Director Longview MPO Members Not Present
Mayor Harold Magill City of Seagoville Mayor Darren Rozell City of Forney Mayor Barbara Bass City of TylerMayor Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall
To view the complete meeting sign‐in sheets, see Attachment 1.
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) provide members with data including crash rates and traffic volumes throughout the corridor; 2) develop objectives for the Advisory Committee; 3) highlight regional constraints, features, concerns and future considerations along the corridor; 4) brainstorm effective means of public outreach to be used during the public outreach effort; and 5) plan for future meetings. A PowerPoint presentation was utilized to provide an overview of aforementioned items during the meeting. The agenda and presentation are included as Attachment 2. Open House: The Advisory Committee meeting began with an open house featuring exhibits focusing on the following topics:
General corridor maps including planned/programmed improvement projects Safety concerns including crash rates, median barrier treatments and vertical clearances Congestion data with both existing and future traffic data, truck data and level of service Community connections such as overpasses, interchanges and frontage roads Forms of public outreach used on other TxDOT projects such as I‐69 and My35
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013 2 of 9
The open house also featured three 15‐foot corridor maps, breaking the corridor into three sections: west (Dallas and Kaufman counties), central (Van Zandt and Smith counties) and east (Gregg and Harrison counties). The maps would later be used for members to mark features, concerns, constraints and future considerations in their regions on the map as part of the small group exercise. To view exhibits displayed during the open house, see Attachment 3. Welcome/Introductions: Advisory Committee Chairman Judge Bill Stoudt (Gregg County) welcomed attendees to the meeting and thanked Mayor Hal Richards (Terrell) for hosting the meeting at the Terrell Municipal Airport. Marc Williams (TxDOT), acting as the Advisory Committee Facilitator, then asked committee members to introduce themselves. Advisory Committee Members: At the project kick‐off meeting, members decided to expand its previous 16 elected officials and other stakeholders to include the cities of Seagoville, Forney, Lindale and Canton as well as Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). The Advisory Committee is now currently comprised of the following 21 members, representing all counties included within the study corridor, cities of significant populations and area MPOs: Dallas County, Kaufman County, Van Zandt County, Smith County, Gregg County, Harrison County, City of Balch Springs, City of Mesquite, City of Seagoville, City of Forney, City of Terrell, City of Lindale, City of Canton, City of Tyler, City of Longview, City of Marshall, NCTCOG MPO, DART, Tyler MPO, Longview MPO and NETRMA. Van Zandt County I‐20 Update: Judge Rhita Koches (Van Zandt County) informed committee members that in response to a grassroots effort in her county, Van Zandt County passed a resolution in support of improvements at the westbound I‐20 exit ramp number 540. Brought about by the unsafe condition of the exit ramp, Judge Koches mentioned that speed limits need to be lowered in the area and urged TxDOT to look into the issue. Safety Briefing: Marc Williams provided a safety briefing for all meeting attendees highlighting evacuation routes from the building and locations of restrooms, fire extinguishers, and tornado shelter areas within the building. Status of Action Items from July Meeting: Caroline Love (TxDOT) addressed the status of several action items that were marked after the first kick‐off meeting in July concerning the following:
Finalization of the mission statement Invitations extended to new committee members from DART and the cities of Canton, Forney,
Lindale and Seagoville Traffic and crash hotspot data along the corridor provided as part of the Open House Finalized logo selection and changes to the color of the lane striping Access to remote dial‐in connections to future meetings Approval of the minute order for the I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013 3 of 9
She also mentioned that the next Texas Transportation Commission meeting will be held in Tyler at the Smith County Annex building on Nov. 21 and invited all members to attend. Objectives Setting Activity: Susan Howard (TxDOT) displayed the finalized mission statement for the Advisory Committee to review one final time before beginning the objectives setting activity. The committee approved the mission statement as follows:
The I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee will promote and facilitate the involvement and input of affected local communities and interested stakeholders to identify and prioritize the multi‐modal transportation needs of the corridor with a focus on safety, mobility, congestion, and air quality for travellers and freight through East Texas.
As part of this mission statement, Susan emphasized that the goals of the committee were inherent to be focused on the following:
Involve local communities Consider current and future multi‐modal transportation needs Improve safety Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for travelers and freight Enhance air quality
Susan then asked committee members to participate in an objectives setting activity by brainstorming methods of how the above goals could be reached. Marc Williams stressed the importance of this activity as it allowed everyone to brainstorm simultaneously about how the goals of this committee could become a reality. Susan also emphasized that each of the members were chosen to best represent their area; they knew what worked and what didn’t in their own territories. Each member was then given several sheets of paper to write down objectives that could correlate to any of the above goals and hand them back to meeting staff. All of the objectives were then placed on a sticky wall and organized under the goal they referenced. The objectives focused on the following themes correlating to their goals:
Involve local communities o Continue to represent major community representatives including MPOs and RPOs o Share corridor study information with communities to disseminate to citizens o Create transportation plans that complement development plans
Consider current and future multi‐modal transportation needs
o Determine the possibility of rail in the corridor right‐of‐way o Create transportation reinvestment zones to fund rail and right‐of‐way development o Plan for improved highway interchanges along the corridor
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013 4 of 9
Improve safety o Reconstruct access and exit ramps to meet current standards o Raise overpasses to safe height o Expand and create one‐way frontage roads
Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for travelers and freight
o Install a passenger rail system o Extend frontage roads o Widen roadways and bridges
Enhance air quality
o Decrease idling o Add frontage roads to clear traffic more quickly o Create incentives for truck traffic to use Toll 49
To review all of the responses received during the objectives setting activity, see Attachment 4. Mayor Hal Richards (Terrell) inquired as to how these objectives would be prioritized, and Susan mentioned that prioritizations would be part of the activity at the January meeting for committee members to decide on. Judge Hugh Taylor (Smith County) requested that right‐of‐way maps be available to review, especially in correlation with the rail discussion and frontage road expansion. Nishant Kukadia (Jacobs) informed members that right‐of‐way maps and information will be available at the next meeting and mentioned that most of the corridor has adequate right‐of‐way to accommodate two additional lanes or space for a rail alignment. Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon (Balch Springs) asked when environmental impacts would be evaluated, as the portion of I‐20 in her city lies within the floodplain. Marc Williams explained that information such as environmental concerns like in Balch Springs should be relayed in the afternoon’s small group activity. Mayor Hal Richards then questioned the practicality of rail through the corridor. Judge Rhita Koches (Van Zandt County) emphasized that to her, rail seemed to be an all‐or‐nothing discussion, as portions of rail wouldn’t suffice to serve the area, but must connect all the way through the corridor. Michael Miles (DART) mentioned that he could work with the DART staff to evaluate possible passenger rail options to present back to the committee. Per Celia Boswell’s (NETRMA) request, Marc Williams clarified that this study will be mainly focused on the I‐20 roadway, but also take into consideration other parallel roadways within the corridor, as they might be part of potential solutions for I‐20 problems. The committee then broke for lunch before reconvening to discuss corridor constraints and participate in a small group activity.
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013 5 of 9
Constraints, Features, Concerns and Opportunities: Michael Sexton (Jacobs) emphasized the importance of combining the Study team’s general knowledge with the committee members’ specific area knowledge to create an overall master plan for the corridor. He began his presentation highlighting examples of area constraints, corridor features, concerns, and future considerations to deliberate during planning. To view the full presentation, see Attachment 2. Michael then explained the next exercise for members. As part of this activity, members would be split into three groups and given a map of their project area. Members were instructed to write on the map and leave notes concerning issues they were aware of that needed to be taken into consideration as part of the study. He asked that each group discuss the following questions and provide comments for their areas:
What constraints are missing that should be added to the map? What community features should be added to the map? What are your concerns about I‐20? What future considerations should be added to the map?
Small Group Exercise: Committee members broke into three groups according to their location along the I‐20 corridor; specifically, West (Dallas and Kaufman counties), Central (Van Zandt and Smith counties) and East (Gregg and Harrison counties). Tricia Bruck (Jacobs), Caroline Love and Susan Howard served as group facilitators as each of the members left notes on their area maps and wrote notes in relation to comments members had on the above questions. After each of the groups were finished meeting, members were then asked to peruse the other two groups’ maps to review or leave comments on the other two sections of the corridor. All of the members then reconvened and each group chose a representative to present their synopsis of issues discussed during the group meetings. Group One, representing the western section of the corridor, presented first. City Manager Mike Sims (Terrell) mentioned themes centered on the following:
Existing intersections with major highways such as I‐635, SH 80 and Texas 34 as well as planned intersections
Growth in the region, especially in relation to large economic development areas being built in areas with already unsafe entrance and exit ramps and frontage roads
Crossings at waterways including Big Brushy Creek and the East Fork Trinity River Group Two, representing the central section of the corridor, had Vernon Webb (TxDOT Tyler District) present themes centered on the following:
High crash rates throughout the area, especially with wet weather concerns Lack of continuous frontage roads Lack of alternate routes leading to complete highway shutdowns in emergency situations Inadequate ramp lengths
Mayor Robert Nelson (Lindale) added that things such as high crash rates could not wait 20 years to be
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013 6 of 9
fixed. Marc Williams mentioned the possibility of Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZ) along the area as a way of funding solutions to issues such as frontage roads sooner rather than later. He also suggested the possibility of a more detailed presentation on TRZs at the next Advisory Committee meeting in January. Group Three, representing the eastern section of the corridor, then asked Karen Owen (Longview MPO) to present themes centered on the following:
High crash rates near SH 42, SH 31, and FM 2081 Long stretches of interstate, such as crossing the Sabine River, with no exits Incident management Economic development and increased traffic in the region Connection with Toll 49 – future corridor Intersection with future I‐69/I‐369
Public Outreach: Susan Howard stressed to members the importance of public outreach associated with this corridor study, especially as it pertains to community input on the following topics:
Rural transportation needs along I‐20 Constraints, community features and concerns not already included in the study Short, immediate and long‐term transportation improvements needs Recommendations for addressing freight and alternative transportation modes Alternative and non‐traditional funding strategies Prioritization and next steps for TxDOT to advance the project
Susan reminded members that several examples of public outreach materials from other TxDOT projects were on display as part of the open house. Possible tools to use for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study include comment cards, presentations to community groups, newsletters, press releases and media relations, social media, fact sheets, websites or open houses. She then asked members the following questions as to past successes with public outreach in their regions: 1. What forms of public outreach work best in your community?
Mayor Hal Richards (Terrell) suggested condensing information into a simple one‐page fact sheet using layman’s terms to educate the general public of the goals and objectives of the study.
Judge Bruce Wood (Kaufman County) mentioned the success of social media to communicate messages to a broad audience, but also emphasized the importance of keeping face‐to‐face meetings.
Jerry Dittman (Mesquite) stated that public outreach needed to be widespread to reach the best audience. He mentioned success using social media, newsletters, websites, open houses and presentations to service organizations in Mesquite. He also emphasized the importance of creating a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page for the project.
Kevin Feldt (NCTCOG) recommended using both print and electronic means of communication. He also mentioned the possibility of including high school students in the process, as they would be the ones to benefit from the improvements. He also mentioned that any social media efforts need to be monitored closely for quick response times to
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013 7 of 9
questions posed, as well as post more interesting and conversation‐worthy information to start discussions, even if it is controversial.
Karen Owen (Longview MPO) suggested keeping messages simple and timely. She also noted the importance of working together with MPOs and RMAs to deliver coordinated and timely efforts across the corridor and to maintain a consistent message.
Barbara Holly (Tyler MPO) commented that an ad in the classified section does not count as meeting notice anymore, but suggested the need for repetitive messaging prior to meetings.
Judge Joel Baker (Smith County) also added that he does not feel Town Hall meetings are effective forms of public outreach anymore for tailored messages such as with transportation studies.
2. How do you effectively involve the limited English proficiency (LEP) community?
Barbara Holly mentioned going to Spanish‐language churches and organizations with materials and messages.
Several members suggested creating bilingual outreach materials in Spanish. No one indicated a need for languages other than Spanish and English.
Jerry Dittman mentioned the importance of finding someone the LEP community trusts to carry the message for you. Locating a community spokesperson to bring on as a liaison that the LEP community feels comfortable talking to and providing information to is essential for adequate feedback.
Celia Boswell (NETRMA) suggested shorter project messages and focusing on answering questions to clear up any negative or inadequate information they may have.
3. What are the best methods to gather feedback in your community?
Jerry Dittman informed members of the success of comment cards in Mesquite by keeping questions simple and easy to complete. He referenced an experience on collecting transit information by handing out comment cards (3” by 5”) at bus stops, where travelers could quickly fill out the card and hand it back before boarding the bus.
Mayor Robert Nelson (Lindale) agreed that he thinks surveys are effective to gather tailored feedback from the community.
Several members also suggested the use of Survey Monkey, as it is a free service and online. They also discussed the use of social media to pose questions, as long as responses are monitored.
Overall the members said that open houses were preferred over town hall type meetings with presentations. Susan Howard mentioned to members that draft outreach materials would be prepared for members to review at the next meeting in January. Open Comments: Marc Williams invited members to provide any other comments in regards to the corridor study other than the topics already discussed. Judge Bill Stoudt (Gregg County) reminded members to think of funding as a major portion of this study. The members needed to have a vision on how improvements can be paid for, not only what the
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013 8 of 9
improvements need to be. Linda Ryan Thomas (NETRMA) said that the NETRMA has talked about lobbying support for transportation issues before the elections next year so that potential newly elected officials will start supporting the efforts made towards transportation improvements. Marc Williams mentioned several groups dedicated to working together on transportation issues, such as the Transportation Advocates of Texas (TAOT) and the Alliance for I‐69 Texas. He also mentioned the possibility of arranging to have a representative from one of those groups present at the next meeting in January. Jerry Dittman (Mesquite) raised the idea for the committee to look into transportation reinvestment zones further and come to a consensus on the baseline for the entire corridor. Future Meetings: Marc Williams discussed that the next Advisory Committee meeting would focus on review of conceptual interstate layouts. Judge Stoudt (Gregg County) asked to have a presentation from transportation advisory groups as part of the next meeting, and Jerry Dittman (Mesquite) asked for a presentation explaining transportation reinvestment zones and lessons learned from the Cotton Belt Corridor Innovative Finance Initiative. Judge Taylor (Harrison County) asked for existing right‐of‐way maps to be available for review. Michael Miles (DART) mentioned that he would provide information on the possibility of passenger rail opportunities that could be explored along the corridor. He offered to provide a primer on such strategies. Marc Williams then asked members if they would like to hold the next Advisory Committee meeting in San Antonio on January 6 as part of the Texas Transportation Forum. Members agreed to the location and asked that scheduling be reviewed, as other committees would be meeting as part of the forum that day as well. A dial‐in or web conferencing option will be made available to members unable to attend the meeting. Wrap Up: Marc Williams reminded all committee members that the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study is an agenda item at the next meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission, which will be held on November 21 at 9 a.m. in the Smith County Annex Building, and all are invited to attend. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:
Provide existing right‐of‐way maps and data at next meeting Research feasibility and requirements for rail throughout the corridor Create draft public outreach materials for review Arrange presentation from a transportation advocacy group Prepare presentation about transportation reinvestment zones and lessons learned from the
Cotton Belt Innovative Finance Initiative Consult schedule for January 6 meeting as part of the Texas Transportation Forum Provide dial‐in/web ex conference capabilities for January meeting
I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013 9 of 9
Attachments: 1. Advisory Committee Sign‐In Sheets 2. Meeting Agenda and Presentation 3. Open House Exhibits 4. Objectives Setting Activity Responses
Meeting Staff: Marc Williams, Caroline Love, Jefferson Grimes, Susan Howard, Roger Beall, Cary Karnstadt, Tim Juarez and Lindsey Kimmitt (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia, Tricia Bruck, Chris Lazaro and Nair Barrios (Jacobs) Aimee Vance and Stephanie Ross (K Strategies Group)
Attachment 1 Advisory Committee Meeting Sign-‐In
Sheets
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting
October 23, 2013
Attachment 1
1 of 4
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting
October 23, 2013
Attachment 1
2 of 4
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting
October 23, 2013
Attachment 1
3 of 4
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting
October 23, 2013
Attachment 1
4 of 4
Attachment 2 Meeting Agenda and
Presentation
I-‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee
Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 10:30 AM – 2:30 PM Terrell Municipal Airport
400 British Flying School Road, Terrell, Texas www.terrellairport.com
Meeting #2 -‐ Draft Agenda
Draft: October 15, 2013
10:30 AM Open House 11:00 AM Welcome & Introductions Judge Bill Stoudt Safety Briefing Marc Williams, TxDOT 11:10 AM Review the status of Action Items from July 18, 2013 Meeting Caroline Love, TxDOT 11:20 PM Review Mission Statement & Development of Objectives Susan Howard, TxDOT 11:40 PM Break for Lunch (on your own) 12:20 PM Presentation Michael Sexton, Jacobs
Description of possible constraints, community features, concerns and future considerations
Instructions for the Small Group Exercise 12:30 PM Small Group Work Sessions (see other side for more information) Group 1 -‐ West (Dallas and Kaufman Counties)
Group 2 -‐ Central (Van Zandt and Smith Counties) Group 3 -‐ East (Gregg and Harrison Counties)
Questions for discussion in the small groups:
(1) What constraints are missing that should be added to the map? (2) What community features should be added to the map? (3) What are your concerns about I-‐20? (4) What future considerations should be added to the map?
Reports from Small Groups
Members Provide Input on Other Areas along I-‐20
1:25 PM Reconvene Whole Committee for Q & A Session Marc Williams, TxDOT 1:40 PM Discuss Public Outreach Strategies Susan Howard, TxDOT 2:00 PM Wrap-‐up and Next Steps Marc Williams, TxDOT 2:30 PM Adjourn
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting
October 23. 2013
Attachment 2
I-‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee, Draft Agenda (October 23, 2013), Continued Draft: October 14, 2013
Page 2 of 2
Steps for Small Group Work Sessions
1) The committee has been split into three groups based on the areas which each member represents. The colour of the dot on your name tag indicates which group you belong to (Green = West, Blue = Central, and Red = East).
2) Each group will be asked by a facilitator to discuss the four questions listed below. Responses
to these questions will be captured by drawing on the map and a scribe writing on a flip-‐chart. 1. Based on the presentation, what constraints are missing that should be added to the
map? 2. What community features should be added to the map? 3. Do you have any specific concerns about a particular area that should be added to the
map? 4. What opportunities should be added to the map?
3) Each group will spend about 20 minutes reviewing their section of I-‐20.
4) A volunteer from each group will make a brief report to the whole group on the top three
highlights of their group’s discussion.
5) After the small group reports, you will take about 10 minutes to review and provide input on the other areas along I-‐20. For example, if you participated in Group 1 (West) focusing on Dallas and Kaufman counties, you can take this time to review and provide input on the Central and East sections of I-‐20.
6) After about 10 minutes you will reconvene as one large group for a Q&A session.
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting
October 23. 2013
Attachment 2
Attachment 3 Open House Exhibits
Attachment 4 Objective Setting Activity Responses
I-‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting
Attachment 4: OBJECTIVES SETTING ACTIVITY RESPONSES
Below are the transcribed versions of the responses received during the Objectives Setting activity and scanned copies of the original responses: INVOLVE LOCAL COMMUNITIES:
• Ensure MPO and RPO representation • Traffic studies and sharing information from those studies with local leadership to disseminitate
to citizens and businesses along I-‐20 • Talk to the local business leaders during group (i.e. chamber meetings) • Host town hall meetings for the local citizens • Visioning along the I-‐20 corridor of potential impact on land uses (e.g. residential, mix use,
commercial, etc.) immediately adjacent and/or 2 mile radius as it relates to safety • Donations for right-‐of-‐way (ROW) to include room for passenger rail • Just as you are doing today. Keep all of us informed on how and what we can do to help • Establish framework/typical transportation reinvestment zone (TRZ) along I-‐20 to assist in
funding all modes. TRZ’s adopted locally. • Survey Monkey • Involve high school and college students in public input process • Transportation plans must compliment local development plans • Relationships with city – county governments; regional organization COGs; community
chambers, EDC’s and service clubs; build private partnerships with landowners; developers, etc. CONSIDER CURRENT AND FUTURE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS:
• Conceputual plan: include rail • Plan for ROW: bridges -‐ built for rail; setbacks – additional room for rail now • Investigate light rail between Dallas and the Louisiana state line utilizing I-‐20 ROW • Rail (both passenger and fright) development requires substantial planning and funding,
including: work to preserve ROW in corridors for appropriate rail development; work to develop short/long-‐term funding opportunities
• I-‐20 geometry and ROW must accommodate future passenger rail • Higher speed passenger rail in I-‐20 ROW • Create TRZ now for future needs and to move much faster to insure future infrastructure is not
hindered due to financing • Consider the future: what impact will our planning have on the East Texas Hour Glass at Toll 49 • Focus on building a network throughout the corridor utilizing all forms of transportation and
provide planning together • Study high speed rail • Whatever is done should provide the most options for the future: technology; volume of
passenger traffic; volume of freight traffic; rail; more ROW. We should try not to get boxed in • Pursue the concepts that were the basis for the Trans Texas Corridor
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 1 of 40
• Plan for I-‐69 interchange near Marshall • I-‐20 corridor does not mean I-‐20 only. We need to consider US 80 and 175 as part of the
corridor IMPROVE SAFETY
• Access management for business adjoining frontage roads • Reconstruct access ramps to current standards • Construct truck-‐only lanes • Improve road surface to sections rated fair or poor • Access management techniques implementation: reduce the number of driveways and
wide/open area driveways in close proximity to exit and entrance ramps • Add barriers to medians of less than 80 feet in width • Raise overpasses to safe height • Additional lanes in areas during travel on I-‐20 i.e. city of Longview • Partnering with TxDOT for city/county to finance (TRZ zones, etc.) • One-‐way service roads • Safety barriers – need better law enforcement access across barriers: allow law enforcement to
cross; allow safety equipment to cross • Review of speed limits and length of exitways • Service roads east and westbound for emergencies whenever I-‐20 is shut down • Barrier from Kaufman County line to 635 • Focus on access roads update; concrete blocks on narrower parts of road
REDUCE CONGESTION AND ENHANCE MOBILITY FOR TRAVELERS AND FREIGHT
• Commuter rail • Consider rail hubs as midpoints connectors to urban areas • Extend service roads in areas to alleviate traffic on actual roadway • Coordination of thoroughfare plans where municipalities are updating their
infrastructure/thoroughfare plans to complement this study effort • Increase freight carrier speed limit in off-‐peak hours with an eye to modifiying shipper behavior • Build relations with providers and plan to expand providers • Lobby Austin for funding solution and use Public-‐Private Partnerships • Higher speed rail – explore options • Construct truck-‐only lanes • Widen roadway to six lanes from Longview through Harrison County to State line • Widen bridges • Add frontage road lanes • Widen from four to six lanes • Service roads will definitely enhance mobility for potential retail development that will affect
heavy traffic • Higher speed rail in I-‐20 ROW
ENHANCE AIR QUALITY
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 2 of 40
• Higher speed passenger rail in I-‐20 ROW • Keep traffic moving during accidents and blocked I-‐20 lanes to eliminate the idling • Add capacity: widen from four to six lanes; higher speed rail • Enact idle reduction ordinances • Create HOL to alleviate vehicles • Incentives to direct truck traffic onto Toll 49 • Continuous one-‐way frontage roads with priority to high volume/high accident areas
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 3 of 40
Enhance air quality
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 4 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 5 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 6 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 7 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 8 of 40
Reduce congestion and enhance mobility
for travelers and freight
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 9 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 10 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 11 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 12 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 13 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 14 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 15 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 16 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 17 of 40
Consider current and future multi-‐modal transportation needs
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 18 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 19 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 20 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 21 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 22 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 23 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 24 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 25 of 40
Involve local communities
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 26 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 27 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 28 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 29 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 30 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 31 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 32 of 40
Improve safety
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 33 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 34 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 35 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 36 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 37 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 38 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 39 of 40
I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013
Attachment 4 40 of 40
DRAFT
I-20 East Texas Working Group Meeting
Thursday, July 18, 2013, 2:00pm Gregg County Courthouse, Longview, Texas
DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY
Name Organization Members Present
Judge Clay Jenkins Dallas County Judge Bruce Wood Kaufman County Judge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg County Judge Hugh Taylor Harrison County Judge Joel Baker Smith County Barbara Holly, Executive Director Tyler MPO Jerry Dittman (alternate for Mayor Monaco) City of Mesquite Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs Jeff Neal (alternative for Michael Morris) NCTCOG Mark McDaniel, City Manager Tyler MPO Karen Owen, Director Longview MPO Linda Ryan Thomas, NETRMA Chair NETRMA
Members Not Present Judge Rhita Koches Van Zandt County Mayor John Monaco City of Mesquite Mayor Hal Richards City of Terrell Mayor Barbara Bass City of Tyler Mayor Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall Michael Morris, Transportation Director NCTCOG MPO Celia Boswell, NETRMA Rail Chair NETRMA
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) introduce the Working Group to the I-20 Corridor Study; 2) provide a general overview of the corridor and the study; 3) discuss issues and needs along the corridor; 4) review the mission statement for the Working group; 5) review Working Group membership; 6) vote on a logo for the study and; 7) plan future Working Group meetings. A PowerPoint presentation was utilized to provide an overview of aforementioned items during the meeting. The agenda and presentation are included as Attachment 2. Welcome/Introductions: Working Group Chairman Judge Bill Stoudt (Gregg County) welcomed attendees to the first kick-off meeting. Marc Williams (TxDOT), acting as the Working Group Facilitator, then asked Working Group members to introduce themselves. Working Group Members: The Working Group is currently comprised of 16 elected officials and other stakeholders along the I-20 corridor, representing all counties included within the study corridor, cities of populations over 15,000 and area MPOs: Dallas County, Kaufman County, Van Zandt County, Smith County, Gregg County,
DRAFT
Harrison County, City of Tyler, City of Longview, City of Marshall, City of Mesquite, City of Balch Springs, City of Terrell, NCTCOG MPO, Tyler MPO, Longview MPO and NETRMA.
Safety Briefing: Marc Williams provided a safety briefing for all meeting attendees highlighting evacuation routes from the building and restroom, fire extinguisher, defibrillator and tornado shelter locations within the building. Purpose of the Working Group: Commissioner Jeff Austin III (Texas Transportation Commission) highlighted the importance of the I-20 corridor and thanked members for coming together to discuss problems and possible solutions for the area, emphasizing the importance of increasing safety throughout the corridor. He also noted that he would like to have information gathered from this study to present at the next legislative session in 2015. Marc Williams displayed the draft mission statement for the Working Group and asked for the members to review the statement to discuss later in the meeting. He then showed a list of the current members in the Working Group, potential collaborating partners and roles and responsibilities for all involved parties. Marc asked members if any other groups should be included in the Working Group moving forward. Russell Zapalac (TxDOT) suggested creating a master plan for the Working Group as to how the group should operate. Commissioner Austin asked members to consider if they would be interested in submitting the group as the official Advisory Committee to the Texas Transportation Commission. Overview of I-20: Marc Williams began the discussion of the overview of I-20 by highlighting the counties and cities along the I-20 corridor. He then discussed the background of the 155-mile corridor including employment and population numbers for all counties along the corridor, transportation characteristics, traffic volumes, levels of service, freight and rail service lines, major intermodal and distribution centers and crash statistics. He asked members for suggestions of other distribution centers that may have been missed but needed to be included in the study. Marc continued by discussing the project development process and estimated that generally projects take between 8 to 10 years from planning/environmental to construction with funding being the main impact on timing. He showed a table of currently planned/programmed improvements already in place for I-20 through 2035 and the members discussed the next steps in the proposed timeline for the study leading up to a completed corridor plan in late 2014. Issues/Needs of I-20: Throughout the meeting, members brought up issues associated with complete shutdowns of I-20, inconsistent frontage roads, increasing congestion associated with population growth, increasing number of crashes and the inadequacy of the entrance and exit ramps in accordance with the increased speed limit along the corridor. The needs for an additional third lane from Kaufman County to the Louisiana state line, one-way frontage roads along the corridor, managed express lanes and multimodal transportation were mentioned as well. Members suggested evaluating freight and
DRAFT
passenger rail as part of the study and reviewing the status of USPS distribution center and adding FedEx and Goodyear distribution centers into the study. Judge Clay Jenkins (Dallas County) and Jeff Neal (NCTCOG) were asked to provide guidance from their experience working on the previous I-35 corridor study. Judge Jenkins suggested breaking the project down into stages of development to create more manageable projects. Jeff Neal noted the importance of helping TxDOT to prioritize needs along the corridor from the members’ knowledge of the corridor. Commissioner Austin also highlighted that due to the diverse area included in this study corridor, members needed to think outside the box in relation to funding; the corridor passes through multiple counties, cities and COG areas, widening the pool of finances available to take on such a project. TxDOT District representatives mentioned the need for coordination with Louisiana and that the development of I-69 could bring more traffic to I-20. Additionally, since I-20 was initially constructed more than 50 years ago, an assessment of its design in comparison to current vehicle speeds would be important. In relation to the next meeting, members requested information on traffic and crash hotspots, traffic generators and fatalities associated with oil fields or other specific areas along the corridor. Review of Mission Statement: Discussion between the members suggested adding a focus on relieving congestion and improving air quality to the mission statement, as well as emphasizing the importance of these improvements for both travelers and freight. The mission statement was revised to “The I-20 East Texas Working Group will promote and facilitate the involvement and input of affected local communities and interested stakeholders to identify and prioritize the multimodal transportation needs of this corridor with a focus on the safety, mobility, congestion, and air quality for travelers and freight through East Texas.” Working Group Composition: Members decided to submit the group to be designated as an official Advisory Committee for TxDOT in association with the I-20 Corridor and asked to include the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and the cities of Lindale, Canton, Forney and Seagoville as members, bringing the total to 21 Working Group members. Study Logo: Caroline Love (TxDOT) showed the members three proposed logos, to choose from for the I-20 Corridor Study, seen in Attachment 3. Members voted on Option C, shown below, but pointed out that I-20 does not have yellow dashed lane dividers and requested the lane dividers be changed to white in the logo.
DRAFT
Future Meetings: Marc Williams asked for possible meeting locations for the October Working Group meeting and Judge Bruce Wood (Kaufman County) volunteered to host the meeting in Terrell, Texas on Wednesday, October 23 at 10 a.m. Marc pointed out that the next meeting would be a longer, hands-on meeting and would dive into more technical details associated with the study. Specifically, members would be reviewing corridor maps, identifying area constraints and multimodal centers and brainstorming for possible public outreach efforts. Members were reminded that if they would not be able to attend a future meeting to please identify a permanent alternate to attend in their place. It was also suggested to have a possible dial-in connection to the meetings to make it easier for members to participate in future meetings. Wrap Up: Members were notified that a press release had been prepared for each of them that could be used to announce their participation in the Working Group, as seen in Attachment 4. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:
• Send updated mission statement to members • Revise slide 13 which describes communities along I-20 to include Lindale • Invite DART and cities of Canton, Forney, Lindale and Seagoville to become members • Provide members with five traffic and crash hotspots before October meeting • Research traffic generators and distribution centers in the corridor • Change lane striping from yellow to white in logo • Create dial-in connection to meetings • Draft Minute Order for I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee
Attachments:
1. Working Group Sign-In Sheets 2. Agenda and Presentation 3. Logo Options 4. Working Group Draft Press Release
Meeting Staff: Caroline Love, Russell Zapalac, Marc Williams, Jefferson Grimes, Mark Werner, Travis Pokorny and Cary Karnstadt (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia, Tricia Bruck, Chris Lazaro and June San Miguel (Jacobs) Katrina Keyes and Aimee Miller (K Strategies Group)
Attachment 1 Working Group Meeting
Sign-In Sheets
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 1 Page 1 of 4
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 1 Page 2 of 4
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 1 Page 3 of 4
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 1 Page 4 of 4
Attachment 2 Agenda and Presentation
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 1 of 19
I-20 East Texas Working Group
First Meeting Agenda
Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:30 PM – 3:30 PM
Gregg County Courthouse 101 East Methvin
3rd Floor County Courtroom Longview, Texas
Agenda
1:30 – 1:45 PM Welcome and Introductions Welcome from Chairman Bill Stoudt Introductions from all attendees
1:45 – 2:00 PM Safety Briefing Purpose of Working Group TxDOT
2:00 – 2:30 PM Overview of I-20 TxDOT Staff
2:30 – 3:15 PM Open Discussion a. Issues/Needs of I-20b. Review of Mission Statementc. Committee Compositiond. Study Schedulee. Future Meetings, including
i. Format (by phone, in person, etc.)ii. Public Involvement Opportunities
3:15 – 3:30 PM Wrap-Up and Q & A TxDOT
3:30 PM Adjourn
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 19
7/30/2013
1
I-20 EAST TEXAS WORKING GROUP Kick-off Meeting
July 18, 2013
Welcome and Introductions
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 3 of 19
7/30/2013
2
Agenda 1:30 – 1:45 PM Welcome and Introductions
Welcome from Chairman Bill Stoudt
Introductions from all attendees
1:45 – 2:00 PM Purpose of Working Group
2:00 – 2:30 PM Overview of I-20
2:30 – 3:15 PM Open Discussion
a. Issues/Needs of I-20
b. Review of Mission Statement
c. Committee Composition
d. Study Schedule
e. Future Meetings, including
i. Format (by phone, in person, etc.)
ii. Public Involvement Opportunities
3:15 – 3:30 PM Wrap-Up and Q & A
3:30 PM Adjourn
Texas Department of Transportation Goals & Values
Goals• Maintain a safe system
• Address congestion
• Connect Texas communities
• Become best-in-class state agency
Values• Trust
• Integrity
• Responsibility
• Excellence
• Service
4
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 4 of 19
7/30/2013
3
PURPOSE OF WORKING GROUP
5
Working Group – Draft Mission Statement
Mission Statement
The I-20 East Texas Working Group will promote and facilitate the involvement and input of affected local communities and interested stakeholders to identify and prioritize the multimodal transportation needs of this corridor with a focus on the safety and mobility of travelers through East Texas.
6
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 5 of 19
7/30/2013
4
Working Group – Current Membership
Member Name Entity Title Clay Jenkins Dallas County County Judge
Bruce Wood Kaufman County County Judge
Rhita Koches Van Zandt County County Judge
Joel Baker Smith County County Judge
Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg County County Judge
Hugh Taylor Harrison County County Judge
Barbara Bass City of Tyler Mayor
Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor
Ed Smith City of Marshall Mayor
John Monaco City of Mesquite Mayor
Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs Mayor
Hal Richards City of Terrell Mayor
Michael Morris NCTCOG MPO Director of Transportation
Barbara Holly/Mark
McDaniel Tyler MPO MPO Director/Tyler City Manager
Karen Owen Longview MPO MPO Director
Linda Ryan
Thomas/Celia Boswell NETRMA Chair/Chair, Rail
7
Potential Collaborating Partners
8
Partners
Farm Bureau
Native American Tribes
Economic Development Organizations
Private Business Interests
Rural Planning Organizations
Rail – Freight/Passenger Interest Groups
Transit Interest Groups
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 6 of 19
7/30/2013
5
Roles and Responsibilities
Working Group – represent constituencies throughout the Corridor, and
report to them on study directions and recommendations. Provide study
inputs and recommendations
Collaborating Partners – represent specific interest groups and provide
inputs at appropriate times during the process and invited to meetings.
TxDOT – facilitate the process and incorporate study findings into
ongoing Transportation Improvement Programs.
Consultant (Jacobs) – support TxDOT and Working Group in the
process with meeting logistics, technical analyses, and reporting.
9
OVERVIEW OF I-20
10
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 7 of 19
7/30/2013
6
Outline
Counties & Cities along I-20
Transportation Characteristics of I-20
Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
Freight/Passenger Rail Facilities
Major Intermodal/Distribution Centers
Crash Statistics
Project Development Process
Planned/Programmed Projects
Background – Employment/Population per County
County Population1 Employment2
Dallas 2,368,139 1,478,521
Kaufman 103,350 26,248
Van Zandt 52,579 9,533
Smith 209,714 92,174
Gregg 121,730 78,321
Harrison 65,631 22,974
1 2010 Population Data – US Census Bureau 2 September 2012 – Bureau of Labor Statistics
12
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 8 of 19
7/30/2013
7
Background – Communities along I-20
City County Population*
Mesquite Dallas 139,824
Tyler Smith 96,900
Longview Gregg 80,455
Balch Springs Dallas 23,728
Marshall Harrison 23,523
Terrell Kaufman 15,816
Seagoville Dallas 14,835
Forney Kaufman 14,661
Kilgore Gregg 12,975
Whitehouse Smith 7,660
Kaufman Kaufman 6,703
Canton Van Zandt 3,581
Hallsville Harrison 3,577
City County Population*
Wills Point Van Zandt 3,524
Grand Saline Van Zandt 3,136
Hideaway Smith 3,083
Crandall Kaufman 2,858
Van Van Zandt 2,632
Overton Smith 2,554
Bullard Smith 2,463
Waskom Harrison 2,160
Combine Dallas/Kaufman 1,942
Troup Smith 1,869
Talty Kaufman 1,535
Edgewood Van Zandt 1,441
Kemp Kaufman 1,154
* 2010 Demographic Profile Data – US Census Bureau (Communities with population >1,000)
13
Background – Transportation Characteristics
• Approx. 155 miles
• 65 Interchanges
• 33 Over/Underpass
• 3 RR Over/Underpass
• 2 Rest Areas
• 1 Weigh Station
• 1 Flyover Connection
• 2 lanes in each direction1
14
1. Except for three lanes in each direction for about 10 miles east of I-635
From I-635 To State Line
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 9 of 19
7/30/2013
8
Background – Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
15
2012 2050 2012 2050 2012 2050
Background – Freight/Rail Facilities
16
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 10 of 19
7/30/2013
9
Background – Major Intermodal Centers/Distribution Centers
17
Background – Crash Statistics (2008-2012)
Total crashes 1,032 1,074 1,076 929 1,036
18
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 11 of 19
7/30/2013
10
Project Development Process
19
Currently Planned / Programmed Improvements for I-20
From / At To Description County Year
Kleberg Road New Interchange Dallas 2020
I-635 Seagoville Rd Construct freeway ramps Dallas 2013
Falcon’s Lair Construct Interchange Dallas / Kaufman 2030
FM 148 SP 557 2-lane frontage road Kaufman 2014 Kaufman County Line
Harrison County Line
Feasibility Study for adding managed lanes in Tyler District
Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg 2035
Loop 49 CR 431 Add frontage roads Smith 2035
SH 110 US 271 Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Smith 2035
SH 31 E. Metro area boundary Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Gregg 2030
Louisiana State Line
Gregg County Line Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Harrison 2035
20
Planning & Environmental Engineering & Design Construction
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 12 of 19
7/30/2013
11
Next Steps – Proposed Study Timeline
Public
Outr
each
Kick-off Meeting July 2013
Corridor Plan Nov.- Dec. 2014
Working Group Meeting Purpose
Jul 2013 • Working Group Kick-off and Study Introduction
Oct 2013
• Define Issues/Opportunities
• Identify/Review of Corridor Features
• Define Public Outreach Strategies
• Develop Purpose & Need
Jan 2014 • Review Technical Information
• Review Conceptual Interstate Layout
Mar 2014 • Identify Potential Projects
May 2014 • Evaluate Projects
• Prioritize Projects
Aug 2014 • Review Draft Corridor Plan
• Prepare for Public Outreach
Sep – Oct 2014 • Conduct Public Outreach and Open House(s)
Nov 2014 • Review Public Outreach Summary
• Finalize Corridor Plan
Dec 2014 • Presentation to Texas Transportation Commission
21
OPEN DISCUSSION
22
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 13 of 19
7/30/2013
12
Open Discussion – Issues/Needs of I-20
23
Bridge
Clearance Congestion
Safety
Open Discussion – Review of Draft Mission Statement
Mission Statement
The I-20 East Texas Working Group will promote and facilitate the involvement and input of affected local communities and interested stakeholders to identify and prioritize the multimodal transportation needs of this corridor with a focus on the safety and mobility of travelers through East Texas.
24
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 14 of 19
7/30/2013
13
Open Discussion – Working Group Composition
Member Name Entity Title Clay Jenkins Dallas County County Judge
Bruce Wood Kaufman County County Judge
Rhita Koches Van Zandt County County Judge
Joel Baker Smith County County Judge
Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg County County Judge
Hugh Taylor Harrison County County Judge
Barbara Bass City of Tyler Mayor
Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor
Ed Smith City of Marshall Mayor
John Monaco City of Mesquite Mayor
Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs Mayor
Hal Richards City of Terrell Mayor
Michael Morris NCTCOG MPO Director of Transportation
Barbara Holly/Mark
McDaniel Tyler MPO MPO Director/Tyler City Manager
Karen Owen Longview MPO MPO Director
Linda Ryan
Thomas/Celia Boswell NETRMA Chair/Chair, Rail
25
Open Discussion – Potential Collaborating Partners
26
Partners
Farm Bureau
Native American Tribes
Economic Development Organizations
Private Business Interests
Rural Planning Organizations
Rail – Freight/Passenger Interest Groups
Transit Interest Groups
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 15 of 19
7/30/2013
14
Open Discussion – Logo Options
27
A B
C
Open Discussion – Proposed Study Timeline
Public
Outr
each
Kick-off Meeting July 2013
Corridor Plan Nov.- Dec. 2014
Working Group Meeting Purpose
Jul 2013 • Working Group Kick-off and Study Introduction
Oct 2013
• Define Issues/Opportunities
• Identify/Review of Corridor Features
• Define Public Outreach Strategies
• Develop Purpose & Need
Jan 2014 • Review Technical Information
• Review Conceptual Interstate Layout
Mar 2014 • Identify Potential Projects
May 2014 • Evaluate Projects
• Prioritize Projects
Aug 2014 • Review Draft Corridor Plan
• Prepare for Public Outreach
Sep – Oct 2014 • Conduct Public Outreach and Open House(s)
Nov 2014 • Review Public Outreach Summary
• Finalize Corridor Plan
Dec 2014 • Presentation to Texas Transportation Commission
28
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 16 of 19
7/30/2013
15
Next Meeting – Identification/Review of Corridor Features
An environmental constraints study will consider the following items:
– Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat
– Parks
– Hazardous Material Sites
– Environmental Justice Populations (low income and minority)
– Cultural Resources (cemeteries, landmarks, historical markers, National Historic
Register Sites)
– Water Resources (floodplains, streams, lakes and wetlands)
– Sensitive Resources (schools, nursing homes, day care facilities, places of worship,
hospitals, etc.)
29
30
Next Meeting – Identification/Review of Corridor Features
Other corridor features could include:
– Economic Development Areas
– Business / Industrial Parks
– Intermodal Centers
– Distribution Centers
– Military Facilities
– Airports / Rail Facilities
– Lignite Mine Near SH 43
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 17 of 19
7/30/2013
16
Next Meeting – Public Outreach Tools
We need your help gathering input on:
– Rural transportation needs along I-20
– Local planning issues (planned future development,environmental features, etc.)
– Opportunities for short, intermediate and long-termtransportation improvements
– Recommendations for addressing freight andalternative transportation modes
– Feasibility of potential alternative/non-traditional fundingstrategies
– Recommendations on priorities on and next steps forTxDOT and local stakeholders to consider in advancingproject development activities in the corridor
31
Point of Contact
Caroline Love
Texas Department of Transportation
Office of Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin III
125 E. 11th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 463-1965 – Office
(512) 475-3072 – Fax
32
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 18 of 19
7/30/2013
17
Wrap Up and Q&A
Homework
• Identify corridor features and constraints
• Consider public outreach strategies
Next Meeting – October 2013
• Date and Time
• Location
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 2 Page 19 of 19
Attachment 3 Logo Options
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
A
Attachment 3 Page 1 of 2
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 3 Page 2 of 2
Attachment 4 Working Group
Draft Press Release
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 4 Page 1 of 3
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DRAFT
TxDOT Launches I-20 Corridor Study with first East Texas Working Group meeting
July 18, 2013 – The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) will kick off an I-20
Corridor Study this Thursday, July 18, with the first meeting of the I-20 East Texas Working
Group in Longview, Texas. The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the current safety
and capacity needs and plan for the future along a 155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 in
Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana State Line.
An integral component of this study is to work directly with public and private stakeholders
through a Working Group. Implemented to assist TxDOT in assessing the rural transportation
needs along I-20 by providing locally focused input and recommendations, the Working
Group is currently comprised of 16 elected officials and other stakeholders along the I-20
corridor and includes representatives from: Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg and
Harrison counties; the cities of Mesquite, Balch Springs, Terrell, Tyler, Longview, and
Marshall; the North Central Texas Council of Governments, Tyler Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) and Longview MPO; and the North East Texas Regional Mobility
Authority. (insert elected official name here) will be serving on the Working Group
representing (jurisdiction name here) and its residents’ interests in the I-20 Corridor Study.
“Quote about participating in the Working Group goes here,” said (insert elected official name
here). “Continued quote goes here.”
###
FOR
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 4 Page 2 of 3
ABOUT THE STUDY: The I-20 corridor currently serves as an integral east-west connection for both travel and
trade in Texas. As the interstate system ages and population and trade increase, the
importance of assessing the current corridor conditions and identifying opportunities for
improvement and growth along the corridor come into play.
During the next 18 months, the I-20 Corridor Study will focus on assessing the current I-20
corridor conditions; identifying both immediate and long-term needs; highlighting and
prioritizing potential improvement projects; outlining funding requirements for the
implementation of potential projects; and planning the next steps for TxDOT to advance this
project.
Press Contact: Name, Title Company E: C:
Map highlighting the areas to be reviewed as part of the I-20 Corridor Study.
I-20 East Texas Working Group
July 18, 2013
Attachment 4 Page 3 of 3
API
AppePublic-20 East Te
endixc Outre
xas Corrido
x C each r Study
Effortss
Contents
1.1. Public Involvement Plan
2. Initial Public Outreach
2.1. Public Involvement Update
2.2. I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Email Correspondence Tracking
2.3. Fact Sheet (September 3 2014 Version)
2.4. Talking Points (September 3 2014 Version)
2.5. Frequently Asked Questions (September 3 2014 Version)
2.6. Comment Card (September 3 2014 Version)
2.7. Activity Form (September 3 2014 Version)
2.8. Received Activity Forms April 2014 – July 2014
2.9. Community Presentation (September 3 2014 Version)
2.10. I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey Sample
3. Draft Plan Outreach
3.1. Second Public Involvement Update
3.2. I-20 Draft Implementation Plan (September 19 2014 Version)
3.3. Community Presentation (September 19 2014 Version)
3.4. Fact Sheet (September 19 2014 Version)
3.5. Fact Sheets by County
3.6. Virtual Open House
3.7. Received Activity Forms August 2014 – November 2014
Public Involvement Plan
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
DRAFT
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 2
Project Overview
The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study being conducted by TxDOT is focused on evaluating the
current safety and capacity needs along the 155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 in Dallas to
the Texas/Louisiana state line.
A key component of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study will be working with an Advisory
Committee made up of 21 elected officials and key transportation stakeholders from the
corridor area. The purpose of the Advisory Committee will be to assist TxDOT by providing
feedback on issues and concerns to be considered, prioritization of projects and possible
funding alternatives.
The I-‐ 20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee will promote and facilitate the
involvement and input of affected local communities and interested stakeholders to identify
and prioritize the multi-modal transportation needs of the corridor with a focus on safety,
mobility, congestion, and air quality for travellers and freight through East Texas.
Public Involvement Plan
The purpose of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan (PIP) is to
increase awareness of the project and to proactively communicate project information to
stakeholders and the public. The PIP outlines goals and objectives for public involvement
and activities that will be developed to communicate project information, updates and key
milestones as well as gather public input on issues and concerns to be considered as part of
the corridor study. The PIP will be led by K Strategies in coordination with Jacobs
Engineering Group, under the direction of TxDOT.
Public Involvement Goals
The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study PIP will focus on the following goals:
Provide a proactive communications program
Communicate timely and easily understood information
Create engaging opportunities for the public to be involved with the study
Generate feedback to assist the Advisory Committee in prioritizing opportunities and
concerns
Public Involvement Objectives
The main objectives for the PIP include:
Develop a cohesive message and brand for the study
Utilize multiple modes of communication to reach stakeholders
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 3
Collaborate with Advisory Committee members to gain assistance communicating
information to the public
Develop tools to gather focused feedback
Key Stakeholders
Key stakeholders for the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study span along the entire 155-mile
study corridor. In addition, stakeholders would also include commuters from outside of the
project area. Below is a list of categories of key stakeholders for the project:
Advisory Committee Members
– Dallas County
– Kaufman County
– Van Zandt County
– Smith County
– Gregg County
– Harrison County
– Balch Springs
– Mesquite
– Seagoville
– Forney
– Terrell
– Canton
– Lindale
– Tyler
– Longview
– Marshall
– Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)
– North Central Texas Council of Governments
– North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority (NETRMA)
– Longview MPO
– Tyler MPO
Collaborating Partners
– Farm Bureau
– Native American Tribes
– Economic Development Organizations
– Private Businesses Interests
– Rural Planning Organizations
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 4
– Freight Rail and Passenger Rail Interest Groups
– Transit Interest Groups
Residents within the study corridor
Businesses along and near I-20
Commuters
Public Involvement Components
As part of the PIP, the following elements will be developed to create a cohesive and
effective public involvement campaign throughout the duration of the I-20 East Texas
Corridor Study.
Stakeholder Database
A stakeholder database will be developed to be used as a point of contact for project
information and to communicate with the public. This database will include contact
information for Advisory Committee members, collaborating partners, residents, businesses,
commuters and others who have an interest in the study.
Public Mailing List
In addition to the stakeholder database, a public mailing list will be created and updated
regularly to include open house and community presentation attendees as well as others
who express an interest in the study who provide contact information.
Communication Channels
In order to effectively communicate with the public, project messages will be provided
through a variety of sources including:
Open houses
Community presentations and talking points
Website updates
Email notifications
Social media (Facebook and Twitter)
Online surveys (Survey Monkey)
Printed study collateral
– Fact Sheets
– Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Message boards (highway boards/variable message boards)
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 5
More detailed information on how social media and online surveys will be used can be found
in the Social Media Plan and Survey Monkey Plan respectively.
Printed study collateral will be available at all open houses and community presentations, as
well as provided to Advisory Committee members for distribution.
Public Comment Database
Any public comments received during the study will be compiled and managed in a tracking
database. Comments could be received by website, Facebook, Twitter, email, mail, or at
public meetings. All comments received will be compiled into a report and given to the
project team on a regular basis.
Public Involvement Timeline
During the course of the study, activities and outreach will coincide with Advisory Committee
discussion topics, which will serve as guidelines for the type of public involvement activities
that will be planned.
Timeframe Advisory Committee Meeting Topic Public Involvement Activities
July 2013 Study introduction
October 2013 Identify constraints, community
features, concerns and future
considerations
January 2014 Review traffic, crash and geometry
analysis; review conceptual I-20
improvement strategies; approve
public involvement materials
Committee members begin
initial public involvement: - Community presentations
- Update website
- Email notifications
- Social media posts
- Online surveys
March 2014 Identify potential projects Continued initial public
involvement efforts
April 2014 End initial public involvement
May 2014 Evaluate and prioritize projects;
review public involvement feedback
August 2014 Review draft corridor plan
September 2014 Corridor Study open houses
October 2014 Corridor Study open houses
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 6
November 2014 Review public input received from
open houses; finalize corridor plan
December 2014 Presentation to Texas Transportation
Commission
Members share the final
corridor plan; update study
website; social media posts;
email notifications
This PIP is a working document. As the study progresses, the PIP will be updated to reflect
more detailed information on the timing and nature of public involvement activities.
Plan created by:
K Strategies Group
214.599.9766
www.kstrategies.com
2. Initial Public Outreach I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Public Involvement Update I-20 East Texas Corridor Study DRAFT
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 2
Public Involvement Plan The I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee members identified the importance of involving local communities in the study as an overarching goal for the study. To guide this, a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) was created outlining outreach activities focused on increasing awareness of the project and proactively communicating project information to stakeholders and the public.
Public Involvement Goals The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study PIP focused on the following goals:
Provide a proactive communications program
Communicate timely and easily understood information
Create engaging opportunities for the public to be involved with the study
Generate feedback to assist the Advisory Committee in prioritizing opportunities and concerns
Public Involvement Objectives The main objectives for the PIP included:
Develop a cohesive message and brand for the study
Utilize multiple modes of communication to reach stakeholders
Collaborate with Advisory Committee members to gain assistance communicating information to the public
Develop tools to gather focused feedback
Informational Materials As part of the PIP, the following informational materials were developed to share information about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study with project stakeholders.
Project Website Serving as a general information hub for the project, the project website was created in August 2013 and updated throughout the project to include recent project information. While on the website, users could view:
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
Project fact sheet
Meeting minutes
Project maps
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 3
Additionally, links were provided for an online comment form available the entire duration of the project and to the study’s public survey made available during May and June 2014.
FAQs A list of FAQs was compiled based on suggestions from the I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee members. These questions were then answered and provided to the public through the project website and available through the committee members’ local offices beginning in February 2014.
Project Fact Sheet A project fact sheet was developed including a general overview of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, an explanation of what would be evaluated as part of the study scope, details on how to stay involved with the study, and information on the Advisory Committee members. The project fact sheet was provided to the public through the project website and available through the committee members’ local offices beginning in February 2014.
Public Outreach To encourage public participation in the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, a variety of public outreach methods were used to allow for stakeholder participation.
Public Comments To ensure stakeholders were able to submit comments on the study, comment could be received by website, Facebook, Twitter, email, mail, or at public meetings. Additionally, the online survey made available in May 2014 allowed for comments on the study. All of the public comments received during the study were compiled and managed in a tracking database. Comments received between February 2014 and July 2014 are summarized below:
Method Comment was Received Number of Comments
Web-based 64 Mailed-In 7 Online Survey 1441 Total Comments Received 215
1 Open commentary was optional when responding the Online Survey.
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 4
Comments were received from stakeholders in 18 counties and the study team prioritized the following three themes per county:
Map of Comments Received by County
Cherokee County (One comment received) – Make I-20 a double decker freeway to put cars on the top level and trucks on the
bottom
Collin County (One comment received) – Create a dedicated truck lane in each direction of I-20
Dallas County (Eight comments received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Raise the speed limit on some portions of I-20 to make it consistent throughout – Add an HOV lane in each direction of I-20
Denton County (One comment received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Keep the 75 mile per hour (MPH) speed limit – Better enforcement of “slower traffic keep to the right” rule
Ellis County (One comment received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Keep a low speed limit – Better traffic enforcement
Gregg County (55 comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Hazardous wet road conditions
Harrison County (15 comments received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 5
– Add frontage roads – Add entrance and exit ramp at Buck Sherrod Road
Henderson County (Two comments received) – Lower the speed limit
Kaufman County (One comment received) – Lower the speed limit – Better enforcement of traffic law – Modify entrance and exit ramps
Rusk County (One comment received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Add a fourth lane between Kilgore and Longview – Modify entrance and exit ramps
Shelby County (One comment received) – Add entrance and exit ramps to ease traffic back-ups2 – Add frontage roads – Real-time notifications of accidents and traffic
Smith County (101 comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps – Add frontage roads – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20
Van Zandt County (Five comments received) – Create a dedicated truck lane in each direction of I-20 – Road surface improvements – Improve rest area facilities in Gregg County
Tarrant County (Four comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Road surface improvements
Upshur County (Three comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps
Caddo Parrish (Two comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps
2 Area not specified. Comment referenced the ability to get off the highway when accidents back up traffic.
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 6
– Raise the speed limit to make it consistent – Road surface improvements west of Terrell
County unknown (Five comments received) – Create a dedicated truck lane in each direction of I-20 – Lower speed limits – Provide passenger and freight rail service (Dallas – Tyler – Louisiana)
To view all comments received, please see Attachment 1. Additionally, through the submittal of comments and feedback from the online public survey, the following projects were identified as needing improvement along the I-20 corridor that had not already been included in the technical staff project list as of June 11, 2014: New Ramps
Harrison County – Buck Sherrod Rd (determined
to be too close to adjacent interchanges)
Hydroplaning areas
Van Zandt – From FM 19 to CR 110
Smith – From US 69 to FM 14
Gregg – From US 42 to FM 2087 – From FM 2087 to Loop 281 W
Harrison – From US 259 to Loop 281 E
Bridges
Gregg – Sabine River bridge widening
Resurfacing
Dallas – From I-635 to Kaufman County
Line
Kaufman – From Dallas/ Kaufman County
Line to FM 2965
Harrison – From Loop 281 E to FM 134
(Waskom) Interchange Improvement
Dallas County – Loop 635 – US 175
Ramp Modifications
Smith County – Toll 49 – CR 411
Gregg – US 259 (Eastman Rd.) – SH 135
Harrison County – Spur 156
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 7
Online Public Survey To gather specific feedback on priorities for the project and to assist the Advisory Committee in highlighting projects needing improvements in the study corridor, an online public survey was created and made available through May and June 2014. The survey consisted of nine questions, summarized below:
1. In what county do you live within the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study area?
Answer Options Response Count
Dallas County 17 Kaufman County 4 Van Zandt County 2 Smith County 128 Gregg County 57 Harrison County 18 Other (please specify) 27 answered question 253 skipped question 1
2. How often do you travel along the I-20 corridor area between I-635 in Dallas County
and the Texas/Louisiana state line?
Answer Options Response Count
Daily 57 Weekly 62 Monthly 102 Rarely 24 answered question 245 skipped question 9
3. Which of the following options best describes why you most frequently use I-20?
Answer Options Response Count
Commuting to your work place 52 Traveling for work away from your regular work place 45 Traveling for personal use (entertainment/vacation) 127 Hauling Freight 4 Other (please specify) 17 answered question 245 skipped question 9
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 8
4. Please select up to three strategies you think should be the highest priorities for the I-20 study.
Answer Options Response Percent 3
Response Count
Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for travelers 72.6% 164 Improve safety 62.4% 141 Consider current and future multimodal transportation needs (highway, freight rail, intercity bus service, passenger rail, etc.)
46.5% 105
Involve local communities 43.4% 98 Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for freight 23.9% 54 Enhance air quality 4.9% 11 Other (please specify) 8
answered question 226 skipped question 28
5. Please select up to three of the following improvement areas you think are most
important along the corridor.
Answer Options Response Percent 2
Response Count
Adding lanes 58.3% 133 Improving or adding frontage roads 50.0% 114 Reconfiguring entrance and exit ramps 50.0% 114
Creating passenger service opportunities (e.g. passenger rail, intercity bus)
32.5% 74
Improving median safety 26.8% 61 Adjusting speed limits up 21.5% 49 Adjusting speed limits down 7.5% 17 Raising bridge heights 0.4% 1 Other (please specify) 15
answered question 228 skipped question 26
6. What specific areas along I-20 within your county do you feel need attention and
what do you think should be done? (Example: lengthen the ramp at the [Street Name or Exit], lower the speed limit near City Name, etc.)
139 respondents provided comments regarding specific areas within their county that have been included in the comment section above.
7. What areas along I-20 outside of your county do you feel need immediate attention?
(Example: intersection of highways) Please provide name of specific city or between specific cities, etc.
106 respondents provided comments regarding specific areas outside of their county that have been included in the comment section above.
3 Survey respondents were given the opportunity to choose multiple options.
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 9
8. Please leave any additional comments about the I-20 study below:
41 respondents provided additional comments that have been included in the comment section above.
9. To join our mailing list for the project, please fill out the information below. Your
information will be kept confidential and used only for this study.
64 respondents provided information for the mailing list.
Advisory Committee Public Outreach In addition to the tools provided by the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, advisory committee members were asked to create public outreach opportunities in their own communities with possible suggestions of social media posts, website links and community presentations. Members were then asked to submit an activity form to the study team for tracking of individual events. Members submitted activity forms for 21 events held between February and June 2014 reaching out to over 400 local residents. Information was shared with chambers of commerce, local organizations, homeowners associations and at city council meetings and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) meetings. More information is provided below:
Member Activity Forms Returned Total Audience Reach
Balch Springs 5 153
Gregg County 1 N/A
(newspaper article)
Harrison County 5 104
Longview MPO 5 61
Smith County 1 30
Tyler MPO 4 79
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 10
Additionally, advisory committee members were responsible for sharing information through social media, website links and through the following news sources:
Tyler Morning Telegraph
Marshall News Messenger
KETK NBC – Tyler
Longview News Journal
Update created by: K Strategies Group 214.599.9766 www.kstrategies.com [email protected]
I-‐20 East Texas Corridor StudyEmail Correspondence Tracking
Updated 5/14/14
Date Received City State ZIP County Comment
2/20/14 As the Executive Director of the COG/MPO just across the Texas/Louisiana Line I am very interested in this project and would very much like to attend the meetings. Please let me know if this is possible.
3/11/14 Longview TX 75606 Gregg I am covering the study group for the Longview News-‐Journal. Nice job on the icy day last Monday, I was there.
3/11/14 Longview TX 75601 Gregg
LOWER THE DAMNED SPEED LIMIT! Raising it to 75 was the dumbest move. All that does is increase the fatalities and we are already #1 in that!! It just made me sick when it was raised. I won't travel it anymore. Back roads are easier and safer.
3/11/14 Tyler TX 75703 Smith
I travel I-‐20 to Shreveport and Dallas quite often. The entrance and exit ramps of I-‐20 need to be updated to allow for safe merging of traffic, the entrances and exits in Longview are without a doubt the first on the list to be addressed. In addition minimum speed limits need to be posted and ENFORCED. A third lane would be a great addition, but may be prohibitivly expensive. However, if a third lane is added, even in certain areas (Gregg, Smith, Harrsion counties), a no truck in the left lane rule needs to be adopted and enforced.
3/11/14 Tyler TX 75703 SmithThe solution to I-‐20 etc traffic is simple. More public transportation, be that high speed rail or buses. There should rarely be a reason to need a car. There is no excuse for Texas to go on pretending that it is still living in the 19th Century
3/12/14 Kilgore TX 75663 Gregg
1) Need longer ramp at HWY 2011 east bound access. Current is unsafe due to increased traffic on I-‐20.2) Need 3rd lane between Longview and Dallas. Big Truck/Cargo and Oilfield Trucks need to stay out of Inside Lane if 3rd lane is installed. Increased Truck traffic is great for Texas Economy but creates unsafe driving for non-‐truck motorist.3)What are the options on paying for Safety improvements?
3/12/14 Longview TX 75601 Gregg
I hate driving on I-‐20. Most of the time I spend on I-‐20 is between Shreveport and Longview. There needs to be at least 1 more lane in each direction to ease the heavy traffic. The other traveling I do is between Longview and Livingston, Tx. I avoid I-‐20 west bound for any travelingwest because I live on the east side of Longview. I feel like the portion of I-‐20 between Longview exit 599 and the one at Estes Parkway is a death trap. I would rather travel through Longview on HWY 80 (also highly dangerous with way too much traffic) than risk being in a wreck on I-‐20 or being stuck behind a wreck on I-‐20. I feel either of those situations is guaranteed to happen if I travel on that portion of I-‐20. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my concerns.
3/12/14 Kilgore TX 75662 Gregg
on and off ramps (estes,eastman exits an extra lanes will be a big help. I drive for Estes Express Lines on 281 loop. hope this be some help. Thanks. Have A Nice Day. I could benefit monetarily from the project or other item about which I am commenting
3/12/14 Longview TX 75603 Gregg
I make at least one business trip between Longview and Dallas each week. Traffic flow issues that I see are:1. Tractor-‐trailer rigs are close to 1/2 of the traffic. When one rig passes another, all traffic behind slows to 65 mph or less. The worst area is in the hills either side of Tyler. A third, no truck, lane in that area would improve traffic flow.2. I do not understand the reason for the 65 mph speed limit between the eastern Kaufman county line and Terrell. There are no businesses along that stretch, just open country with a few on/off ramps.
3/12/14 Kilgore TX 75662 Gregg
On the east bound lane before u get to Sabine river bridge water collects on road and u hydroplane because weep holes are not cleaned out and water collects on roadway when it rains ...I do not go l-‐20 going home when it rains because of this problem!!
3/12/14 Longview TX 75607 Gregg
I drive I-‐20 from Lindale to Longview every weekday for work. Several of the on ramps need to be extended to give traffic opportunity to speed up to highway traffic speed (75 mph) before merging. Also, the Sabine River Bridge can bottleneck without anywhere for traffic to go in the event of an accident. It should be widened. Would be happy to discuss via email. Janet
I-‐20 East Texas Corridor StudyEmail Correspondence Tracking
Updated 5/14/14
Date Received City State ZIP County Comment
3/12/14 New London TX 75682 Rusk
My husband and I work in Longview so I-‐20 is our main road of daily travel. We believe that I-‐20 should be 3 lanes from Shreveport to Dallas even 4 lanes around Kilgore and Longview. Any merging traffice poses the risk of fatality when the interstate traffic is already running 75 MPH. When driving north from Kilgore to Longview, we do not use the access ramp from Hwy 31 to I-‐20 due to the higher speed traffice and inability to see what we are merging with. If you happen to try to enter I-‐20 with 18 wheelers in both lanes you better hope nothing is ahead of you so you can hit the accelerator. To avoid this we make our way to FM2087 and enter I-‐20 from there. Another issue is west bound traffic exiting I-‐20 onto Hwy 31. Hwy 31 needs a 3rd lane to allow more time to merge with traffic. Leaving Longview from Estes Parkway to I-‐20 West is another issues. I-‐20 needs 3 or 4 lanes at this interchange also. I could go on and on. Thank you for askig for communtiy feedback.
3/12/14 Troup TX 75789 Smith plant wildflowers like bluebonnet, Indian paint brushed etc. Texas doesn't have many of our state flower no where.
3/17/14 Ben Wheeler TX 75754 Van Zandt Inquiring bout job oppertunity. Need work so bad thanks
3/24/14 Longview TX 75607 Gregg
Letourneau University, located in Gregg County, just a small distance from I-‐20, is very interested in the future of I-‐20. We operate extension programs in the DFW area. We regularly utilize airports in DFW and so students, staff, and guests are daily traveling on I-‐20.
Safety and congestion issues already exist. The future promises these issues to grow to unacceptable concerns.
I encourage the study group to look at the development of access roads in the Longview area. Longview is a major city directly on I-‐20. The safety of I-‐20 would be enhanced if local business traffic could utilize access roads. This is also an economic development concern as future business development is hindered by the lack of proper access roads in Longview.
I also encourage the group to look at rail solutions that would move passenger and freight traffic off the congested highway and onto rail. With more reliable and timely schedules and accessible connections intothe growing DART rail system of DFW, Letourneau University staff and students would use rail daily to travel to/from Dallas on university business. A safety issue for sure, this is also an economic developmentissue. the economic growth of East Texas requires safe and convenient access to the DFW metroplex.
3/31/14 Rusk TX 75785 CherokeeIt would take a ton of money & time but what if I-‐20 was a double-‐decker? You could put cars on the top road & trucks on the bottom. All of them would be happy, not to mention much safer.
4/1/14 Longview TX 75615 Gregg
My theory is that it is an interstate in a state of 30 million people, therefore it should have 3 lanes one for entering or exiting, one for trucks and slower drivers, and the inside lane for faster traffic and passing. Two lanes between longview and Shreveport are bumper to bumper almost any day of the week. The way east texas drivers tailgate, and make unsafe decisions, a third lane would allow conscientious and aware drivers one more option to avoiding the selfish morons that seem to think their business is so important that they must ride peoples butts, and pass on the right, and jump in between two vehicles that are a couple lengthsapart. 3 lanes would also significantly relieve the congestion, which results in people getting impatient, and making unsafe decisions.
4/2/14 Longview TX 75602 Gregg
Two issues: Have a study to see why the area for several miles east and west of Longview is very bad during rain with cars and trucks hydroplaning. Wrecks every time it rains. Should the speed limit really be 75 with the many cars and truck exiting between Marshall and Kilgore? We take other routes with our grandkids when its raining.
4/2/14 Longview TX 75605 Gregg
Require all 18 wheelers and vehicles to remain in the right lane at all times. These vehicles are constantly changing lanes to pass another truck. Often, the passing truck is traveling at 65 mph and the truck being passes is going 64 3/4 mph. They take 2 miles to pass and essentially reduce the flow of traffic to around 60 mph.
I-‐20 East Texas Corridor StudyEmail Correspondence Tracking
Updated 5/14/14
Date Received City State ZIP County Comment
4/3/14 Tyler TX 75703 Smith
I am an Owner\Operator truck driver. I regularly run I20 from Tyler to Fort Worth and back. The section in Kaufman County from Terrell to I635 is in bad need of resurfacing. This section of I20 is so rough that I actually blew out an air bag in my suspension when crossing a bridge and hitting the pavement again. The rest of I20 seems to be in good shape and well maintained. It would also be nice to have the speed limit increased in Kaufman county.
4/4/14 Athens TX 75751 Hendersonyou going 75 -‐ 18 wheelers past or blocking the hwy trying to past other trucks. most disturbing is cars with handicap tags pass you. In other words speed kills on such a poor kept hwy.
4/5/14 Whitehouse TX 75791 Smith
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the I-‐20 East Corridor. My husband and I travel between Lindale and Dallas most frequently and between Tyler and Shreveport on occasion.
No matter what time of day or night there is consistenlty high volume traffic in both directions. Even though most of the way is posted as 75mph, there is a wide variation of actual travel speeds that cause congestion and is dangerous. There is also a lot of 18-‐wheeler trucktraffic which adds to less steady traffic flow.
I really don't have any answers, but it might be worthwhile to consider adding an additional lane in each direction and have the far right lane be solely for truck use. Expensive, yes, but the current situation at high rates of speed is dangerous to all as evidenced by frequent accidents.
I am also aware that this corridor is used for trafficking illegal drugs and humans between Dallas and Shreveport. Either radar or increased physical highway patrol presence would be a deterrent to illegal activities.
4/10/14 Winona TX 75792 Smith
Add acceleration/deceleration lanes at exits so exiting vehicles can slow down to exit clear of the main lanes and likewise accelerate to highway speed before entering the main lanes. Acceleration/deceleration lanes would help ensure constant flow on the main lanes and make I-‐20 safer.
4/12/14 Tenaha TX 75974 Shelby
Today is a great example of the problems on I20. A wreck occurred between Tyler and Kilgoe. Luckily we were at an exit when traffic backed up to us. My son just ahead of us is still there 2hours and counting. More exits and service roads needed. Some way for emergency vehicles to get to wreck -‐more ways for traffic to get off. Notification of problems ahead needed. Digital signs. A really dangerous on ramp is at Lindale goin ast -‐too short and can't see. The increased traffic on this interstate has made many problems that need to be addressed.
4/15/14 Lindale TX 75771 SmithI would like to see bicycling (multimodal) opportunities enhanced along the I20 corridor. This could create improved non motor transportation opportunities as well as safer recreational cycling opportunities.
4/25/14 Flower Mound TX 75028 Denton
Getting people to follow the slow traffic move right laws. Trucks are theworst 3 lanes would be the best. I use the corridor quite frequently and love the new 75 mph speed limit. Just need to expand to 3 lanes as it get closer to DFW. starting to get very hairy the last 50 miles into Dallas.
4/25/14 Longview TX 75602 Gregg
Adding a 3rd Lane could really benefit easing traffic or a raise in the speed limit. 75 MPH had proved to be a great speed to increase traffic flow, but 80 could help ease it a little better. Most drivers tend to go over 75 anyway. It could help prevent wrecks between speeders and people who obey the speed limits.
4/25/14 Wills Point TX 75169 Van Zandt
I think y'all need to add a trucker only lane like on the new hwy 20 through Mesquite and Balch Springs. I also think the roads need to be leveled down a bit starting at Lindale headed east because when it rains they are so slick and the hills are just too much. The speed limit isperfect so please do not change that. Also, the rest area just as you enter Gregg County coming out of Smith County could use some rest rooms on both sides.
4/28/14 Tyler TX 75703 Smith
It is clear from the TxDOT analysis that the Central corridor in Smith County North of Tyler has the longest region with a high accident incident rate in the study. Why is the proposed expansion to 6 lanes delayed until2035 given the already high accident rate?
4/28/14 Tyler TX 75710 Smith
I believe this study is a vital part of taking care of the citizens of Texas to keep people and goods moving in a safe and efficient manner. This particular corridor was constructed more than 50 years ago where the transportation needs have shifted with economic development, land use, etc.. With limited monies, it is a must to stretch the dollars to support growth where the demand is and proposed.
I-‐20 East Texas Corridor StudyEmail Correspondence Tracking
Updated 5/14/14
Date Received City State ZIP County Comment
4/28/14 Tyler TX 75703 Smith
I think the study should include widening I-‐20 to three lanes east & west and require trucks not to use the inside lane. Also thought should be given to Toll lanes to help offset the cost. The use of the corridor for rail service is necessary and should be put on the "fast track".
4/28/14 Ben Wheeler TX 75754 Van Zandt I am very excited to see this proposal. It is an absolute necessity given the continued growth of population in East Texas.
4/29/14 Tyler TX 75711 SmithI support further development of the I-‐20 corridor. Addition of semi-‐truck lanes in both directions would be a significant safetyimprovement and enhance commercial movement East and West
4/29/14 Tyler TX 75703 Smith
On/Off ramps must be addressed first. Too many cross over frontage roads creating unexpected intersections with high speeds and decreased visibility. This creates "t-‐bone" or yield related accidents between those using the highway and those who live in the area. Many ramps involve tight turns so the maximum speed you can enter a 75 mph highway is 35 mph or to exit, one must drop their speed by 40 mph in a very short distance. The left lane needs a more significant shoulder. It is non-‐existent in many places, which means slight accidents now cause massive pile ups. I am also in support of a HOV lane or time of use lane, but not of any sort of commuter rail system. The demand for a commuter rail is not substantiated.
5/7/14 Marshall TX 75672 Harrison
I hope you will keep the cable barriers in Harrison I-‐20 medians. I feel safer driving with them than the concrete barriers. I think the cables are more forgiving than the concrete and are just as safe. I also love the signage in Texas. You never have to guess where you are...there is one every time you turn onto a new road!
5/13/14 Marshall TX 75672 HarrisonI would like to see the frontage roads from Longview to Waskom become continuous. I would also like to see an entrance/exit ramp at Buck Sherrod road. (Between Hwy 31 and FM 2199)
1
I-20TexCoStu
Sept
HOWANDINVO
Visit owww.txdot/statewcorrid
0 Eastxas rridor udy
tember
W TO GD STAY OLVED
our website .txdot.gov/in/projects/stuwide/i20‐easdor.html
t
2014
GET
…
at nside‐udies/ st‐
Fact
I‐20As necfututranTexa
The s
Overv
Scope
Sheet
0 provides an the interstatessary to assure. A Corridnsportation nas/Louisiana
study will:
Assess currencorridor condand identify nmid and longneeds. The nassessment wfocus on addressing sacongestion, asystem preservation concerns.
Identify oppoand alternati
Consider funimprovemen
Outline next consider adv
view
e of Study
important eate system agsess the curror Assessmeneeds along State Line.
nt ditions near, g‐term eeds will
afety, and
ortunities forive transporta
nding requiremnts, including
steps for TxDvancing projec
ast‐west connges and popent safety annt study hasI‐20 from th
r addressing nation modes.
ments for impalternative/n
DOT and othect developme
nection for trapulation and nd capacity ns been underhe Dallas Me
needs related.
plementationnon‐traditiona
er transportatent activities
S
avel and tradtrade incre
needs and plrtaken to idetropolitan Ar
d to vehicular,
n of potentialal funding str
tion stakeholdfor the corrid
eptember 3, 201
e in Texas. eases, it is an for the entify rural rea to the
, freight
rategies.
ders to dor.
4
2
I-20TexCorStu
0 Eastxas rridor udy
t
Fact S
An stakassilocaave
ThecrosCom
The
Adviso
Sch
Sheet
integral comkeholders thrst TxDOT in aally focused innue for publi
Rural tra
Local plafeatures
Opportu
Recommmodes
Input onstrategie
Recommstakeholthe corri
Advisory Comss‐section of emmittee mem
Counties
Cities (BaLongview
Metropo
North Ea
Dallas Ar
Other enbusiness
Advisory Com
ory Commit
edule
ponent of though an Adviassessing thenput and recoc outreach an
ansportation n
anning issues )
nities for nea
mendations fo
the feasibilites
mendations onders to considor
mmittee is cuelected offici
mbers include
s (Dallas, Kauf
alch Springs, w, Marshall)
olitan Plannin
ast Texas Regi
rea Rapid Tra
ntities could is interests and
mmittee has
Expectein Decem
ttee
his study has isory Commite rural transpommendationd input on is
needs along t
(developmen
ar, mid and lo
or addressing
ty of potentia
n priorities ander in advanc
urrently compals and otherrepresentati
fman, Van Za
Mesquite, Fo
ng Organizatio
ional Mobility
nsit (DART)
nclude econod Native Ame
met approxim
ed study duramber 2014.
been workinttee. The chaportation neens. The Comssues that inc
the I‐20 corrid
nt activities, p
ong‐term tran
freight and a
al alternative/
nd next steps cing project d
prised of indivr stakeholderon from the f
andt, Smith, G
orney, Terrell,
ons (NCTCOG
y Authority (N
omic developerican Tribes.
mately every
ation is about
S
ng with publirge of the Coeds along I‐20mittee providclude:
dor
planning/envi
nsportation im
alternative tra
/non‐tradition
for TxDOT andevelopment
viduals repress along the cofollowing:
Gregg, Harriso
, Canton, Lind
, Tyler, Longv
NETRMA)
ment organiz
two months.
18 months t
eptember 3, 201
ic and privatommittee is t0 by providindes a valuabl
ironmental
mprovements
ansportation
nal funding
nd other locaactivities for
senting a orridor.
on)
dale, Tyler,
view)
zations,
o be complet
4
e o g e
s
l
te
I-20TexCorStu
P
0 Eastxas rridor udy
Page | 1
t
Talki
Study
Adviso
Publi
ing Poi
I‐20 corrtrade in T
18‐mont
Evaluate Texas/Lo
Focus on
Identify acorridor
y Overview
21 membo A
o Co T
Work wit
Assist Tx
ory Commit
You can go P
ge
o O
Informato W
to Fo Fo T
@o P
ic Outreach
ints
idor is an inteTexas
h study to co
155‐mile streouisiana State
n current and
and prioritize
bers All counties a Dallas
HarrisCities with poTransportatio DART
th other colla
DOT with ass
ttee
get involved tPresentationsgroups, electeeconomic devOpen Houses
tion to be updWebsite updatxdot/projectFact Sheets anFacebook (wwTwitter (@TxD@TxDOTAtlanPress Release
h
egral east‐we
onclude in Dec
etch of I‐20 fre Line
future safety
e opportunitie
long the corrs, Kaufman, Vson countiesopulation oveon stakeholdeT, NCTCOG, ne
aborative part
sessing the ru
throughout ts to local goveed officials, cvelopment gr
dated and disates at http://ts/studies/stand FAQs ww.facebookDOT, @TxDOnta) es
est connection
cember 2014
rom I‐635 in D
y and enhanc
es for improv
ridor represenVan Zandt, Sm
r 15,000 peoers representeetRMA, Longv
tners from th
ural transport
he duration oernments, civhambers of croups
stributed regu/www.txdot.gatewide/i20‐e
.com/TxDOT)OTDallasPIO, @
Septembe
n for both tra
4
Dallas to the
ed mobility n
ements along
nted mith, Gregg an
ple ed view MPO, Ty
he community
ation needs
of the studyvic and commommerce, an
ularly via gov/inside‐east‐corridor.
) @TYLPIO,
r 3, 2014
avel and
needs
g the
nd
yler MPO
y
munity nd
html
Frequently Asked Questions
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Page | 1 September 3, 2014
Want more information?
Visit our website at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/ statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
What is the I-2O East Texas Corridor Study?
The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study being conducted by TxDOT is focused on evaluating the current safety and capacity needs along the 155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 in Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana state line.
1.
Why is this study important?
The I-20 corridor currently serves as an integral east-west connection for both travel and trade in Texas. As the interstate system ages and trade increases, identifying opportunities for improvement becomes more critical. Assessing the current corridor conditions and identifying future growth potential are important to ensuring this route meets the needs of the region for decades to come.
2.
Who is involved with the study?
A major component of this study is to work directly with public and private stakeholders through an Advisory Committee. The I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee was established in August 2013 by the Texas Transportation Commission to assist TxDOT in assessing the rural transportation needs along I-20 by providing locally focused input and recommendations. This group is currently comprised of 21 elected officials and other stakeholders along the I-20 corridor and includes representatives from:
• Counties (Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg, Harrison) • Cities (Balch Springs, Mesquite, Seagoville, Forney, Terrell, Canton,
Lindale, Tyler, Longview, Marshall) • Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NCTCOG, Tyler, Longview) • North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority (NETRMA) • Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)
In addition to the members of the committee, the Advisory Committee will be working closely with several collaborating partners, including:
• Farm Bureau • Native American Tribes • Economic Development Organizations • Private Businesses Interests • Rural Planning Organizations • Freight Rail and Passenger Rail Interest Groups • Transit Interest Groups
3.
Frequently Asked Questions
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Page | 2 September 3, 2014
Want more information?
Visit our website at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/ statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
What will be reviewed as part of the study?
This study will focus on evaluating safety concerns and capacity needs along the corridor. This could include additional frontage roads, ramp/interchange redesign, improving vertical clearance, and passenger rail alternatives. The purpose of including representatives of all major areas within the corridor is to ensure that a complete view of the needs for the future of the I-20 corridor is considered.
4.
How long will the study last?
The study is expected to be complete in December 2014, with Committee members conducting public outreach on the draft plan during Fall 2014.
5.
What areas will be included in the study?
The area included within this study spans 155 miles along I-20 from I-635 in Dallas County to the Texas/Louisiana state line. In some areas, other regional highways or roadways may be included in the study when considering solutions to problems, but the primary focus of this study is along I-20.
6.
What will be the end result of the study?
Ultimately, the result of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study will serve as a guide for TxDOT to begin improvements throughout the corridor by providing a prioritized list of projects as well as possible funding solutions.
7.
How can I participate in the study?
Throughout the 18-month study, we will be updating our website regularly, issuing press releases about important topics, and reaching out to you through social media. In addition, we will be hosting outreach events to gather input on the draft plan. You can also submit comments on our website at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html. To date, we have received 215 comments and reached out to more than 400 members of the public through various activities.
8.
I-20TexCorStu
LET UFROM
Please commeEast Te
To submonline, websitww.txdtxdot/ptatewidcorrido
0 Easxas rridor dy
US HEAR M YOU!
provide your ents on the I‐xas Corridor S
mit commentplease visit te at dot.gov/insidprojects/stude/ i20‐eastor.html
st
‐20 Study.
ts our
de‐dies/st‐
Comm
Please prCorridor
NAM
EMA
ZIP:
Texas
Comme
Check a
Join ou
ment Crovide your Study.
ME:
IL:
I am employ
I do business
I could benefcommenting
s Transportation
ents/Questi
ny that apply
ur email list:
Card comments b
yed by TxDOT.
s with TxDOT.
fit monetarily frg on.
n Code, §201.8
ions:
y to you:
below on the
from the projec
811(a)(5)
e I‐20 East T
ct or other item
Texas
m about which I am
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Activity Form
Committee Member Name:
Organization or Group Presented To:
Location: Date:
# of Attendees (approximate):
Questions/Comments:
Follow Up Requests:
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at [email protected] or mail to:
Texas Department of Transportation
Attn: Caroline Love 125 East 11th St. Austin, TX 78701
Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign-in list, or any other items that may
help to document or provide a record of this activity.
September 3, 2014
February 18, 2014
Activity Form
Committee Member Name:
Texas Department
of Transportation
ir licke 1 [lowed
Organization or Group Presented To:
Location: 14W. Ferjuson lei- TA- 75710 Date: 3/13/1,4
# of Attendees (approximate): 7
Questions/Comments: None
Follow Up Requests:
I
cr
1-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at CarolinclovegtxdoLgov or mail to:
Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Caroline Love
125 East 11th St. Austin, TX 78701
Attach copies of meeting agenda sign-in list or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity.
Activity Form Texas arDepartment of Transportation
February 18, 2014
Committee Member Name: Pit citcte I ilcvvell
Organization or Group Presented To:
Location: I-10G Roso Rtrik Dr ly ler T. 757o). Date: 3/0/ 7fit4
# of Attendees (approximate):
Questions/Comments: i\1002.,
Follow Up Requests: hicuta,
NI
1-20 East Texas Corridor Study
LU
ci
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at Carohne.Lovegtxdotgov or mail to:
Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Caroline Love
125 East 11m St. Austin, TX 78701
Attach copies of meeting agenda sign-in list or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity.
Committee Member Name: Cc/tot-el
Organization or Group Presented To: rjler Ar J?cl Chcirtber oP Commerce.
Location: 315 ki Broadwqj Arc) T:yier 7,5704 Date: 3701SM
# of Attendees (approximate): 40
Questions/Comments: 5ee ke d siK,e +S
Follow Up Requests:
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at Caroline.Lovegtxdot.gov or mail to:
Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Caroline Lov(_.
125 East ll tn St. Austin, TX 78701
Attach copies of meeting agenda sign-in list or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity.
a .•==
1-20 East Texas Corridor Study
February 18, 2014
Activity Form
* g
Air Texas Department
of Transportation
C CNi
LU
CC
Activity Form
February 18, 2014
Texas ArDepartment of Transportation
Committee Member Name: chciPt !lowed
Organization or Group Presented To: PL,
Location: 400 Rose Pc Ark Or 1-31er Ty 7Y7oc). Date:
# of Attendees (approximate): 7
Questions/Comments: See ckil-oichea 56e-1
Follow Up Requests: 'doh
1-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at Caroline.Lovegtxclot.gov or mail to:
Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Caroline Low
125 East 1 1 th St, Austin, TX 78701
Attach copies of meeting agenda sign-in list or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity.
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Activity Form
Committee Member Name:
Organization or Group Presented To:
Location: Date:
# of Attendees (approximate):
Questions/Comments:
Follow Up Requests:
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at [email protected] or mail to:
Texas Department of Transportation
Attn: Caroline Love 125 East 11th St. Austin, TX 78701
Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign-in list, or any other items that may
help to document or provide a record of this activity.
February 18, 2014
FEBRUARY 17, 2014
4 - 6 p.m.
CIVIC CENTER 12400 ELAM ROAD
Discussion and active participation on the following items:
1. commUNITY Visioning Charette
Mobility Balch Springs - Star Transit
Housing
Economic Development
2. commUNITY Interests - Open Mic
City of Balch Springs13503 Alexander Road
Balch Springs, TX 75181 (972) 286-4477
Announcements March 6, 2014 Planning & Zoning (PZ) Commission meeting
1. April 12, 2014: Walter E. Luedeke Park Grand Opening Ribbon Cutting Event: 11am-1pm, 3201 Hickory Tree Road
2. I-20 East Texas Corridor Study: Public Comments being requested at www.cityofbalchsprings.com
February 18, 2014
Activity Form
*® , Texas
Department of Transportation
Committee Member Name: Hugh Taylor, County Judge
Organization or Group Presented To: Rotary Club
Location: Panola-Harrison Coop. Marshall, Texas Date: 4/3/14
# of Attendees (approximate): 38
Questions/Comments:
Follow Up Requests:
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at ∎rdi uf titail
Texas Department of Transportation ,n: Caroline Love
125 East 11 th St.
Austin, TX 78701
Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign-in list, or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity.
February 18, 2014
Department Texas
Department of Transportation
Activity Form
f4 5/b2\ tra ms frtiajz644/Ajaate: Location:
22- # of Attendees (approximate):
Committee Member Name: 61--( -1711,11-att
Organization or Group Presented To: 7\11-‘5. ° 4) CtuAtill affin . co)
Questions/Comments: Po NJ
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at A.A
Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Caroline Love
125 East 11 th St. Austin, TX 78701
Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign-in list, or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity.
Follow Up Requests: NOS b/.--
February 18, 2014
Activity Form
Committee Member Name:
Department Texas
Department of Transportation
kv 14 —M11
Organization or Group Presented To: /142-544-a. nlerao R 0-n1 ley
Location : fict k4 T1( C J- 2c 4_ 11-(1--s Me te-- Date: 74 # of Attendees (approximate): / Questions/Comments:
Follow Up Requests:
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at
Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Caroline Lov
125 East 11 th St. Austin, TX 78701
Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign-in list, or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity.
vio 1-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Texas Department
of Transportation
February 18, 2014
Activity Form
Committee Member Name: 7? 4,V
Organization or Group Presented To:
Location: 0-)Ltiii) 1,41 IN2,5; Date: 0. 0 ?,5- /
# of Attendees (approximate):
Questions/Comments: i_it.)e-bPq faceizek ,:ttv CILtat
Follow Up Requests: 71,/irl'UL)
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at
Texas Department of Transportation
Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign-in list or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity
9/8/2014
1
Community Presentation
I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR STUDY
About the Study
• 18-month study to be complete in December 2014
• Focused on evaluating safety and capacity needs along I-20 through East Texas
• Work with stakeholders to identify and prioritize opportunities for improvement
9/8/2014
2
Study Area
155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 near Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana state line through Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg and Harrison counties
3
Why is this study needed?
• I-20 is an important east-west connection for travel and trade in Texas
• Interstate system is aging and population and trade are increasing
• Assess current safety andcapacity needs and plan forthe future
• Identify rural transportation needs
4
9/8/2014
3
What will be reviewed?
5
SAFETY CONCERN
EXAMPLES
Median barriers
Vertical clearance of underpasses and bridges
Interchange design
Crash hotspots
CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT
EXAMPLES
Additional frontage roads
Additional lanes
Alternate routes
Freight needs
Passenger rail options
Advisory Committee
Assist TxDOT by providing locally focused input and recommendations
Helps provide feedback to TxDOT on issues and concerns to be considered, prioritization of projects needed and possible funding alternatives
Members are made up of 21 elected officials and other key transportation stakeholders (full list on next slide)
Works closely with other key organizations to help provide accurate and well-rounded feedback
6
9/8/2014
4
Advisory Committee Members
7
Entity Member Name TitleDallas County Clay Jenkins County JudgeKaufman County Bruce Wood County JudgeVan Zandt County Rhita Koches County JudgeSmith County Joel Baker County JudgeGregg County Bill Stoudt (Chair) County JudgeHarrison County Hugh Taylor County JudgeCity of Balch Springs Dr. Carrie Gordan MayorCity of Mesquite John Monaco MayorCity of Seagoville Harold Magill MayorCity of Forney Darren Rozell MayorCity of Terrell Hal Richards MayorCity of Canton Richard W. Lawrence MayorCity of Lindale Robert Nelson MayorCity of Tyler Martin Heines MayorCity of Longview Jay Dean MayorCity of Marshall Ed Smith MayorDallas Area Rapid Transit Gary C. Thomas PresidentNCTCOG MPO Michael Morris Director of TransportationNETRMA Linda Ryan Thomas Chair/Chair, RailTyler MPO Heather Nick MPO DirectorLongview MPO Karen Owen MPO Director
Initial Public Outreach Update
8
Method Comment was Received Number of Comments
Web-based 64
Mailed-In 7
Online Survey 144
Total Comments Received 215
9/8/2014
5
Most Common Responses by County
9
c
c
c c
c c
10
Draft Plan : Recommended Near-Term Program
9/8/2014
6
11
Draft Plan : Recommended Mid-Term Program
12
Draft Plan : Recommended Long-Term Program
9/8/2014
7
Draft Plan : Recommended Implementation Program
13
14
Timeline of Proposed Activities
July 2013
• Advisory Committee Kick-off & Study Introduction
February 2014
• Prioritize Goals and Objectives
• Identify Potential Projects
• Members begin Initial Public Outreach
January 2014
• Discuss Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) Considerations
• Review & Finalize Public Outreach Tools
October 2013
• Develop Objectives• Identify/Review
Constraints, Features, Concerns & Future Considerations
• Discuss Public Outreach Tools
April 2014
• Members Continue Initial Public Outreach
• Conference Call to update on Outreach Activities
June 2014
• Members Complete Initial Public Outreach
• Evaluate & Prioritize Projects
• Review Summary of Public Input
September 2014
• Review Draft Corridor Plan
• Prepare for Draft Corridor Plan Public Outreach
Sept.-Oct. 2014
• Hold Open House(s)
November 2014
• Review Public Input Received at Open House(s)
• Finalize Corridor Plan
December 2014
• Presentation to Commission
• Members help spread the word that a Final Corridor Plan is available on the website
Indicates Committee MeetingWe are here:
9/8/2014
8
Stay Informed
15
Website updateswww.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
Fact SheetsEmailed to the mailing list, posted on website, available at outreach events, available at Advisory Committee member offices
Open houses or other outreach activities
Email notificationsSign up to join the mailing list on our website
Facebookwww.facebook.com/TxDOT
Twitter@TxDOT, @TxDOTDallasPIO, @TYLPIO, @TxDOTAtlanta
Questions and Comments
QUESTIONS?
Comments can also be submitted online at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
16
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey
The I-20 corridor currently serves as an important east-west connection for both people
and freight in Texas. The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study will evaluate the current safety
and capacity needs along the 155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 in Dallas to the
Texas/Louisiana state line. As part of this study, you can help! By taking just a few
minutes to answer the questions listed below, you can help the project team understand
what’s important to you. For more information about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study,
go to www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
1. In what county do you live within the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study area?
Powered by SurveyMonkey Check out our sample surveys and create your own now!
Page 1 of 5I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey
5/27/2014https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FTHR2XQ
I-20 Usage
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey
2. How often do you travel along the I-20 corridor area between I-635 in Dallas
County and the Texas/Louisiana state line?
3. Which of the following options best describes why you most frequently use I-
20?
Powered by SurveyMonkey Check out our sample surveys and create your own now!
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Rarely
Commuting to your work place
Traveling for work away from your regular work place
Traveling for personal use (entertainment/vacation)
Hauling Freight
Other (please specify)
Page 2 of 5I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey
5/27/2014https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=j3IRi4AcGMUNPp7foCsdAw%3d%3d
Issue Importance
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey
4. Please select up to three strategies you think should be the highest priorities for
the I-20 study.
5. Please select up to three of the following improvement areas you think are most
important along the corridor.
Powered by SurveyMonkey Check out our sample surveys and create your own now!
Involve local communities
Consider current and future multimodal transportation needs (highway, freight rail, intercity bus
service, passenger rail, etc.)
Improve safety
Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for travelers
Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for freight
Enhance air quality
Other (please specify)
Improving or adding frontage roads
Adding lanes
Adjusting speed limits up
Adjusting speed limits down
Reconfiguring entrance and exit ramps
Improving median safety
Raising bridge heights
Creating passenger service opportunities (e.g. passenger rail, intercity bus)
Other (please specify)
Page 3 of 5I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey
5/27/2014https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=j3IRi4AcGMUNPp7foCsdAw%3d%3d
Area focus
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey
6. What specific areas along I-20 within your county do you feel need attention and
what do you think should be done? (Example: lengthen the ramp at the [Street
Name or Exit], lower the speed limit near City Name, etc.)
7. What areas along I-20 outside of your county do you feel need immediate
attention? (Example: intersection of highways) Please provide name of specific
city or between specific cities, etc.
Powered by SurveyMonkey Check out our sample surveys and create your own now!
Page 4 of 5I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey
5/27/2014https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=j3IRi4AcGMUNPp7foCsdAw%3d%3d
Comments
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey
8. Please leave any additional comments about the I-20 study below:
9. To join our mailing list for the project, please fill out the information below. Your
information will be kept confidential and used only for this study.
Name:
Company:
Street Address:
City/Town:
State: -- select state --
ZIP:
Email Address:
Phone Number:
Powered by SurveyMonkey Check out our sample surveys and create your own now!
Page 5 of 5I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey
5/27/2014https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=j3IRi4AcGMUNPp7foCsdAw%3d%3d
3. Draft Plan Outreach I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Second Public Involvement Update
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
DRAFT
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Update 2
Public Involvement Update
1. Activities
Following the development of a preliminary program of improvement projects for the I-20
East Texas Corridor, the Advisory Committee reviewed the plan and offered comments at a
meeting held in Balch Springs on September 10, 2014. After that meeting, the Advisory
Committee comments were incorporated into the preliminary program to create a Draft
implementation plan for members to share with their constituents. The second phase of
public outreach included public presentations performed by Advisory Members throughout
the corridor as well as a virtual meeting created to provide access to the draft
implementation plan for the I-20 Corridor. Presentations focused on improvement projects
selected as priorities in the corridor including near-, mid- and long-term projects.
Advisory Committee Public Outreach
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Advisory Committee members were asked to create public
outreach opportunities in their own communities with possible suggestions of social media
posts, website links and community presentations. Members submitted an activity form to
the study team that documented individual events.
Members submitted activity forms for six (6) events held during the second phase of public
involvement between Sept. 11 and Nov. 7, 2014, reaching out to over 3,056 local residents.
Information was shared with local organizations, city council meetings and metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) meetings. A brief summary is provided below:
Member Activity Forms Returned Total Audience Reach
Longview MPO 4 3,047*
Tyler MPO 1 9
Lindale City Council 1 12
*Longview MPO included information about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study in two email
blasts.
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Update 3
Virtual Open House
In addition to public
outreach efforts
conducted by advisory
committee members,
TxDOT hosted a virtual
open house online to
increase participation of
both citizens and corridor
users. The virtual open
house was hosted through
Survey Monkey and
included slides from the
community presentations
used by Advisory
Committee members.
This presentation included
project information, status
updates and proposed
projects included in the draft plan. Maps and illustrations were used throughout the virtual
open house, and opportunities to comment were available after each set of county-specific
slides.
A video was also produced of the community presentation including a voiced narrative of the
presentation. This video was uploaded to YouTube.
These internet based opportunities were publicized on various social media sites, and
created a number of additional interactions as detailed below:
Outreach Activity Availability Number of Participants
Virtual Open House Oct. 17 – Nov. 7, 2014 53
Video Presentation Oct. 20 – Nov. 7, 2014 138
Figure 1. Virtual Open House Video Presentation
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Update 4
Local Materials Distribution
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study materials including project overview fact sheets, county-
specific fact sheets with proposed project lists and maps, comment cards as well as pre-
addressed and stamped envelopes were made available at seven (7) locations throughout
the corridor during this same time period. Their availability was advertised in a press
release issued by TxDOT on Friday, Oct. 17.
Location County Availability
Texas Travel Information Center Harrison As of Oct. 17
Longview Convention and Visitors Bureau Gregg As of Oct. 17
Gateway Travel Plaza Gregg As of Oct. 17
Tyler State Park Smith As of Oct. 17
Tyler Chamber of Commerce Smith As of Oct. 17
Canton Visitors Bureau Van Zandt As of Oct. 17
Terrell Chamber of Commerce Kaufman As of Oct. 17
2. Public Comments
To ensure stakeholders were able to submit their opinions on the study, comments could be
provided via the project website, Facebook, Twitter, email, mail, or at public meetings.
All of the public comments received during the second phase of public outreach for the
study were compiled and managed in a tracking database. Comments received between
September 1, 2014 and November 7, 2014 are summarized below:
Method Comment was Received Number of Comments
Web-based 12
Mailed-in 0
Turned in at public outreach events 3
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Update 5
Virtual meeting comments 121
Total Comments Received 27
3. Summary
Comments were received from stakeholders in 12 counties and the study team prioritized
the following up to three themes per county:
Angelina County (One comment received)
– Additional non-truck lanes
– Increased speed limit
Dallas County (Two comments received)
– Room for future high-speed rail
– Prioritize frontage road needs based on population
Denton County (Two comments received)
– Additional lanes in each direction
– Increased speed limit between Longview and the State line
Ellis County (One comment received)
– Additional lanes in each direction
– Additional night time reflective lane markers
Fannin County (One comment received)
– High-speed rail
– Toll express lanes with exits every 30 miles
1 Open commentary was optional when responding to the survey associated with the virtual meeting.
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Update 6
Gregg County (One comment received)
– Focus on safety/interchange improvements before clearance
Harrison County (One comment received)
– Road repair needed (potholes)
Kaufman County (One comment received)
– Avoid frontage roads in FEMA floodplains
Parker County (One comment received)
– Additional lanes in each direction
Smith County (Two comments received)
– Additional lanes in each direction
– Room for future high-speed rail
Tarrant County (Two comments received)
– Additional lanes in each direction
– Restrict truck traffic from left lane
– Median safety
Wise County (One comment received)
– Addition of one non-tolled lane in each direction from State line to Terrell
To view all comments received, please see Attachment 1.
Update created by:
K Strategies Group
214.599.9766
www.kstrategies.com
I-20 East Texas Corridor
DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (September 19, 2014)
The Draft Implementation Plan for I-20 East Texas Corridor is based on several factors, including: • Advisory Committee Feedback: The Advisory Committee provided feedback on overall priorities
(add capacity, add/improve frontage roads, improve ramps/interchanges, etc.) as well as specific project priorities during the June 2014 meeting in Tyler.
• Public Input: The public provided input by e-mail, mailed letters, as well as comments during the public input survey period.
• Needs Assessment: Technical analyses were performed on elements along the corridor, including traffic demands, crash histories, vertical clearance standards, interchange designs, bridge conditions, and pavement deficiencies.
The Draft Plan provides programmatic recommendations along I-20 corridor, as well as project level recommendations categorized into Near-Term (2015-2020), Mid-Term (2021-2030), and Long Term (2031-2040) phases.
Programmatic Recommendations: • Modernize ramp designs to serve increasing traffic demands and improve safety. • Pursue vertical clearance of 18’ for underpasses along I-20, primarily improving clearance when
making other required improvements along I-20 and crossing facilities (preliminary cost estimate – varies by location)
• Full-depth reconstruction of pavement along I-20 that has been in use for almost 50 years (preliminary cost estimate for entire corridor up to $1.3 billion).
• Construction of additional lanes to permit the maintenance of traffic during other major improvements, to reduce crash frequencies, and to alleviate future congestion.
• Construction of one-way frontage roads in areas identified by local officials. • Further consider partnering with bus service provider(s) to initiate express bus service, with the last
mile connection provided by the local transit agency or other means (car-sharing, ride-sharing). • Evaluate potential future passenger rail service to include consideration of right-of-way, design,
and innovative financing opportunities.
Project Level Recommendations: The project level recommendations are shown graphically in the attached maps. The table lists projects categorized into near-term, mid-term, and long-term, and includes project details of improvement type, location, and preliminary cost estimate.
Near-Term Mid-Term Long-Term Total # of Bridge Modifications 16 - - 16 # of Ramp/Interchange Improvements 5 21 9 35 Miles of Frontage Road Improvements 12 49 38 99 Miles of Additional Capacity - 65 25 90 Preliminary Cost Estimate (2014$ Millions)* $102.3 $768.2 $390.3 $1,260.8 * Does not include full depth pavement reconstruction
$726,770,000
$482,670,000
$51,311,660
$1,281,600,000
Additional Capacity
Frontage Roads
Bridge, Ramp, and InterchangeImprovements
Pavement Rehabillitation
I‐20 PROGRAM ELEMENTS ( 2014 Dollars)
Community Presentation
I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR STUDY
About the Study
• 18-month study to be complete in December 2014
• Focused on evaluating safety and capacity needs along I-20 through East Texas
• Work with stakeholders to identify and prioritize opportunities for improvement
Study Area
155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 near Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana state line through Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg and Harrison counties
3
Why is this study needed?
• I-20 is an important east-west connection for travel and trade in Texas
• Interstate system is aging and population and trade are increasing
• Assess current safety andcapacity needs and plan forthe future
• Identify rural transportation needs
4
What will be reviewed?
5
SAFETY CONCERN
EXAMPLES
Median barriers
Vertical clearance of underpasses and bridges
Interchange design
Crash hotspots
CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT
EXAMPLES
Additional frontage roads
Additional lanes
Alternate routes
Freight needs
Passenger rail options
Advisory Committee
Assist TxDOT by providing locally focused input and recommendations
Helps provide feedback to TxDOT on issues and concerns to be considered, prioritization of projects needed and possible funding alternatives
Members are made up of 21 elected officials and other key transportation stakeholders (full list on next slide)
Works closely with other key organizations to help provide accurate and well-rounded feedback
6
Advisory Committee Members
7
Entity Member Name TitleDallas County Clay Jenkins County JudgeKaufman County Bruce Wood County JudgeVan Zandt County Rhita Koches County JudgeSmith County Joel Baker County JudgeGregg County Bill Stoudt (Chair) County JudgeHarrison County Hugh Taylor County JudgeCity of Balch Springs Dr. Carrie Gordan MayorCity of Mesquite John Monaco MayorCity of Seagoville Harold Magill MayorCity of Forney Darren Rozell MayorCity of Terrell Hal Richards MayorCity of Canton Richard W. Lawrence MayorCity of Lindale Robert Nelson MayorCity of Tyler Martin Heines MayorCity of Longview Jay Dean MayorCity of Marshall Ed Smith MayorDallas Area Rapid Transit Gary C. Thomas PresidentNCTCOG MPO Michael Morris Director of TransportationNETRMA Linda Ryan Thomas Chair/Chair, RailTyler MPO Heather Nick MPO DirectorLongview MPO Karen Owen MPO Director
Initial Public Outreach Update
8
Method Comment was Received Number of Comments
Web-based 64
Mailed-In 7
Online Survey 144
Total Comments Received 215
Most Common Responses by County
9
c
c
c c
c c
10
Draft Plan : Programmatic Recommendations
• Modernize Ramp Designs
• Pursue 18’ vertical clearance for freight
• Identify areas for full-depth pavement reconstruction
• Construct additional lanes to permit maintenance of traffic during major improvements
• Construct one-way frontage roads in area identified by local officials
• Consider partnering with bus service providers to initiate express bus service
• Evaluate potential future passenger rail service to include consideration of right-of-way, design, and innovative financing opportunities
11
Draft Implementation Plan: Dallas and Kaufman Counties
12
Draft Implementation Plan: Van Zandt County
13
Draft Implementation Plan: Smith County
Draft Implementation Plan: Gregg County
14
Draft Plan: Harrison County
15
16
Timeline of Proposed Activities
July 2013
• Advisory Committee Kick-off & Study Introduction
February 2014
• Prioritize Goals and Objectives
• Identify Potential Projects
• Members begin Initial Public Outreach
January 2014
• Discuss Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) Considerations
• Review & Finalize Public Outreach Tools
October 2013
• Develop Objectives• Identify/Review
Constraints, Features, Concerns & Future Considerations
• Discuss Public Outreach Tools
April 2014
• Members Continue Initial Public Outreach
• Conference Call to update on Outreach Activities
June 2014
• Members Complete Initial Public Outreach
• Evaluate & Prioritize Projects
• Review Summary of Public Input
September 2014
• Review Draft Corridor Plan
• Prepare for Draft Corridor Plan Public Outreach
Sept.-Oct. 2014
• Hold Open House(s)
November 2014
• Review Public Input Received at Open House(s)
• Finalize Corridor Plan
December 2014
• Presentation to Commission
• Members help spread the word that a Final Corridor Plan is available on the website
Indicates Committee MeetingWe are here:
Stay Informed
17
Website updateswww.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
Fact SheetsEmailed to the mailing list, posted on website, available at outreach events, available at Advisory Committee member offices
Open houses or other outreach activities
Email notificationsSign up to join the mailing list on our website
Facebookwww.facebook.com/TxDOT
Twitter@TxDOT, @TxDOTDallasPIO, @TYLPIO, @TxDOTAtlanta
Questions and Comments
QUESTIONS?
Comments can also be submitted online at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html
18
1
I-20TexCoStu
Sept
HOWANDINVO
Visit owww.txdot/statewcorrid
0 Eastxas rridor udy
tember
W TO GD STAY OLVED
our website .txdot.gov/in/projects/stuwide/i20‐easdor.html
t
2014
GET
…
at nside‐udies/ st‐
Fact
I‐20As necfututranTexa
The s
Overv
Scope
Sheet
0 provides an the interstatessary to assure. A Corridnsportation nas/Louisiana
study will:
Assess currencorridor condand identify nmid and longneeds. The nassessment wfocus on addressing sacongestion, asystem preservation concerns.
Identify oppoand alternati
Consider funimprovemen
Outline next consider adv
view
e of Study
important eate system agsess the curror Assessmeneeds along State Line.
nt ditions near, g‐term eeds will
afety, and
ortunities forive transporta
nding requiremnts, including
steps for TxDvancing projec
ast‐west connges and popent safety annt study hasI‐20 from th
r addressing nation modes.
ments for impalternative/n
DOT and othect developme
nection for trapulation and nd capacity ns been underhe Dallas Me
needs related.
plementationnon‐traditiona
er transportatent activities
S
avel and tradtrade incre
needs and plrtaken to idetropolitan Ar
d to vehicular,
n of potentialal funding str
tion stakeholdfor the corrid
eptember 3, 201
e in Texas. eases, it is an for the entify rural rea to the
, freight
rategies.
ders to dor.
4
2
I-20TexCorStu
Sc
for
we
Sc
to
com
0 Eastxas rridor udy
an the code
r the project
ebsite:
can the code
leave a
mment:
t
t
An stakassilocaave
ThecrosCom
The
Exp
Adviso
Sch
Fa
integral comkeholders thrst TxDOT in aally focused innue for publi
Rural tra
Local plafeatures
Opportu
Recommmodes
Input onstrategie
Recommstakeholthe corri
Advisory Comss‐section of emmittee mem
Counties
Cities (BaLongview
Metropo
North Ea
Dallas Ar
Other enbusiness
Advisory Com
ected study d
ory Commit
hedule
act She
ponent of though an Adviassessing thenput and recoc outreach an
ansportation n
anning issues )
nities for nea
mendations fo
the feasibilites
mendations onders to considor
mmittee is cuelected offici
mbers include
s (Dallas, Kauf
alch Springs, w, Marshall)
olitan Plannin
ast Texas Regi
rea Rapid Tra
ntities could is interests and
mmittee has
duration is ab
ttee
eet
his study has isory Commite rural transpommendationd input on is
needs along t
(developmen
ar, mid and lo
or addressing
ty of potentia
n priorities ander in advanc
urrently compals and otherrepresentati
fman, Van Za
Mesquite, Fo
ng Organizatio
ional Mobility
nsit (DART)
nclude econod Native Ame
met approxim
bout 18 mont
been workinttee. The chaportation neens. The Comssues that inc
the I‐20 corrid
nt activities, p
ong‐term tran
freight and a
al alternative/
nd next steps cing project d
prised of indivr stakeholderon from the f
andt, Smith, G
orney, Terrell,
ons (NCTCOG
y Authority (N
omic developerican Tribes.
mately every
hs to be com
S
ng with publirge of the Coeds along I‐20mittee providclude:
dor
planning/envi
nsportation im
alternative tra
/non‐tradition
for TxDOT andevelopment
viduals repress along the cofollowing:
Gregg, Harriso
, Canton, Lind
, Tyler, Longv
NETRMA)
ment organiz
two months.
plete in Dece
eptember 3, 201
ic and privatommittee is t0 by providindes a valuabl
ironmental
mprovements
ansportation
nal funding
nd other locaactivities for
senting a orridor.
on)
dale, Tyler,
view)
zations,
ember 2014.
4
e o g e
s
l
Scan the code for the project website:
Scan the code to leave a comment:
Scan the code for the project website:
Scan the code to leave a comment:
Scan the code to leave a comment:
Scan the code for the project website:
Scan the code to leave a comment:
Scan the code for the project website:
Scan code to leave a comment:
Scan the code for the project website:
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
Welcome to the I20 East Texas Corridor Study virtual community open house! Please feel free to browse our information and provide feedback to be included as part of the study.
Project Overview
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
1. Comments so far?
55
66
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
The next section will go over the results of the I20 East Texas Corridor Study so far including the proposed Draft Implementation Plan, outlining projects along the area to be included in the study. To view the entire draft implementation plan, click here.
2. Please select a county if you would like to skip to the recommendations for a particular county. If you would like to view all of the recommendations, please select "All counties."
Draft Implementation Plan
Dallas and Kaufman counties
nmlkj
Van Zandt County
nmlkj
Smith County
nmlkj
Gregg County
nmlkj
Harrison County
nmlkj
All counties
nmlkj
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
Below are the recommendations for Dallas and Kaufman counties as part of the I20 East Texas Corridor Study's draft implementation plan. To view the maps larger, please click here.
Dallas and Kaufman counties
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
3. Do you agree with the recommendations outlined above?
4. Would you like to continue on to the other counties?
Yes
nmlkj
No (please explain)
55
66
Yes
nmlkj
No, I am finished with the virtual meeting
nmlkj
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
Below are the recommendations for Van Zandt County as part of the I20 East Texas Corridor Study's draft implementation plan. To view the maps larger, please click here.
Van Zandt County
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
5. Do you agree with the recommendations outlined above?
6. Would you like to continue on to the other counties?
Yes
nmlkj
No (please explain)
55
66
Yes
nmlkj
No, I am finished with the virtual meeting
nmlkj
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
Below are the recommendations for Smith County as part of the I20 East Texas Corridor Study's draft implementation plan. To view the maps larger, please click here.
Smith County
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
7. Do you agree with the recommendations outlined above?
8. Would you like to continue on to the other counties?
Yes
nmlkj
No (please explain)
55
66
Yes
nmlkj
No, I am finished with the virtual meeting
nmlkj
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
Below are the recommendations for Gregg County as part of the I20 East Texas Corridor Study's draft implementation plan. To view the maps larger, please click here.
Gregg County
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
9. Do you agree with the recommendations outlined above?
10. Would you like to continue on to the other counties?
Yes
nmlkj
No (please explain)
55
66
Yes
nmlkj
No, I am finished with the virtual meeting
nmlkj
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
Below are the recommendations for Harrison County as part of the I20 East Texas Corridor Study's draft implementation plan. To view the maps larger, please click here.
Harrison County
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
11. Do you agree with the recommendations outlined above?
12. Would you like to continue on to the other counties?
Yes
nmlkj
No (please explain)
55
66
Yes
nmlkj
No, I am finished with the virtual meeting
nmlkj
I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House
13. Thank you for your participation! For more information on this project, check our project website here. To join our mailing list for the project, please fill out the information below. Your information will be kept confidential and used only for this study.
Name:
Company:
ZIP:
Email Address:
October 2014 Sign -In Sheet -2'0 1-20 East Texas Corridor Study
Open House
2.101 Ilie54 6k 5+. TilicTx 15101
i
Lir gea Aid ear/ a 1- (e,
/7/ 11/PW, $-14
22 r Az
,idhr ..7 71 0 .2_ 6-evJ
rif/ L/A 3One/UK-a4i+--- d'eV04196Xelifiooscom i306, hov4c(dlii 7 601
Address
2 crt) -170-1-0- he -
p;4( 7:szCz_.
\.(\eyo.s. Geo
friilcav tYl edekqS. c
Veow,.webio&
4-5 e SOV
Name
Etr*.
Wichdel Led
Verno OM?
A/ten
K1 4sA
plA/se.077 VAA/eVe by(/'
7-oni
Ntepf / 314/\
Texas Department
of Transportation
Activity Form
Ke Committee Member Name: 1\lvir Acre4
Location: \ ‘-‘ R-\\ uifk-ke,o, Date:
Organization or Group Presented To: eLivi c
# of Attendees (approximate):
Questions/Comments: 1\1 67Ne.,
Follow Up Requests: N bit\
September 3, 2014
Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at [email protected] or mail to:
Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Caroline Love
125 East 11th St. Austin, TX 78701
Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign-in list, or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity.
AEI
AppeEvalua-20 East Te
endixation xas Corrido
x G Resulr Study
ts
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study
Project Evaluation ‐ DRAFT
12/31/2014
Pavement Contidion Bridge Freight
System Performance and
CMAQ
Project ID County Road Limit from Limit to Advisory
Committee Preferences
Technical Score
Fatalities aRatio (Crash
rate/Statewide Average)
Interchange Ratings
Vertical
Clearanceb
Mainlane Pavement
Condition Score
Bridge Condition
Average Annual Daily Truck
Traffic (2012) c
Volume to Capacity Ratio
(2012)
New Frontage Road AF-1 Dallas I-20 Lawson Rd FM 740 4 55 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 5Median Barrier Addition AE-1 Dallas I-20 Loop 635 Dallas County Line 4 58 5 1 1 1 4 1 5 5
TC-1 Dallas I-20 I-635 Lawson Rd 2 58 5 1 1 1 4 1 5 5TC-2 Dallas I-20 Lawson Rd Dallas County Line 0 50 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 3
Frontage Road Reconstruction TG-1 Dallas I-20 Seagonville Road Lawson Road 2 50 3 1 1 1 3 1 5 5Ramp Improvement TI-1 Dallas Lawson Rd - - 0 40 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 3
AB-1 Kaufman SH 34 - - 2 68 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 5AD-1 Kaufman FM 429 - - 0 45 1 5 2 1 1 2 1 5AD-3 Kaufman Wilson Road - - 0 20 1AD-4 Kaufman FM 429 - - 0 45 1 5 2 1 1 2 1 5
Added Capacity AC-1 Kaufman I-20 SH 557 Wilson Rd 1 58 5 5 1 1 2 1 3 5AF-2 Kaufman I-20 FM 740 FM 741 0 35 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3AF-3 Kaufman I-20 SH 557 FM 138 3 53 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 5AF-13 Kaufman FM 741 SH 557 Kaufman 3 45 5 3 1 1 3 1 3 1TB-2 Kaufman FM 2965 - - 0 63 3 5 4 1 1 3 3 5TD-1 Kaufman CR 310 (Hiram Rd) - - 0 43 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 5TC-3 Kaufman I-20 Dallas County Line FM 741 0 35 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-4 Kaufman I-20 FM 741 SH 557 0 53 5 3 1 1 2 1 3 5TC-5 Kaufman I-20 Wilson Rd FM 310 0 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-6 Kaufman I-20 FM 310 Kaufman County Line 0 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5TI-2 Kaufman FM 740 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-3 Kaufman FM 741 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3
TI-4 Kaufman FM 2932 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-5 Kaufman FM 1641 - - 0 50 1 5 1 5 1 1 3 3TI-6 Kaufman FM 148 - - 0 55 3 5 1 5 1 1 3 3TI-7 Kaufman SH 557 - - 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-8 Kaufman CR 304 - - 0 38 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 3TJ-8 Kaufman SH 34 - - 2 68 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 5TJ-10 Kaufman SH 34 - - 2 68 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 5
Interchange Improvements AA-3 Van Zandt FM 859 - - 0 53 1 5 2 5 1 3 1 3
AF-4 Van Zandt I-20 FM 47 SH 64 1 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5AF-5 Van Zandt I-20 SH 19 FM 17 0 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TA-1 Van Zandt SH 19 - - 1 53 5 5 2 1 1 1 3 3TB-3 Van Zandt FM 47 - - 1 60 1 3 5 3 1 3 3 5TB-4 Van Zandt CR 3412 - - 1 53 1 5 5 1 1 2 1 5TB-5 Van Zandt SH 64 - - 1 60 3 5 5 1 1 1 3 5TB-6 Van Zandt FM 1255 - - 0 55 3 5 5 1 1 3 1 3TB-7 Van Zandt CR 1311 - - 0 48 1 5 4 1 1 3 1 3TD-2 Van Zandt FM 3439 / CR 3442 - - 0 48 3 1 5 1 1 2 1 5TD-3 Van Zandt FM 17 - - 1 55 1 5 3 1 1 3 3 5TD-4 Van Zandt CR 1308 - - 0 40 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 3TD-5 Van Zandt FM 773 / FM 16 - - 0 63 5 5 4 3 1 3 1 3TB-1 Van Zandt FM 314 - - 0 58 5 3 4 1 1 1 3 5TC-7 Van Zandt I-20 Kaufman County Line FM 47 0 55 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-8 Van Zandt I-20 FM 47 SH 64 1 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-9 Van Zandt I-20 SH 64 SH 19 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3
TC-10 Van Zandt I-20 SH 19 FM 1255 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-11 Van Zandt I-20 FM 1255 CR 1308 0 40 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-12 Van Zandt I-20 CR 1308 FM 773 0 38 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-13 Van Zandt I-20 FM 773 FM 314 0 48 5 3 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-14 Van Zandt I-20 FM 314 Van Zandt County Line 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3
Safety
New Frontage Road
VAN ZANDT
Added Capacity
Interchange Improvements
Project Type
KAUFM
AN
Bridge Modifications
I-20 East Texas Corridor Project Evaluation
Project Characteristics
DALLAS
Added Capacity
Ramp Improvement
Interchange Improvements
Added Capacity
Interchange Improvements
New Frontage Road
a Incidents within 1/2 a mile radius of an intersection have been assigned to its count. (2008‐2012)
b Bridge Database
c RHiNo 2012 Database AADT. DRAFT1
High Score (55<)
Mid Score (50‐54)
Low Score (50>)
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study
Project Evaluation ‐ DRAFT
12/31/2014
Project ID County Road Limit from Limit to Advisory
Committee Preferences
Technical Score
Fatalities aRatio (Crash
rate/Statewide Average)
Interchange Ratings
Vertical
Clearanceb
Mainlane Pavement
Condition Score
Bridge Condition
Average Annual Daily Truck
Traffic (2012) c
Volume to Capacity Ratio
(2012)Project Type
TG-2 Van Zandt I-20 County Line FM 47 1 55 5 3 1 1 3 1 3 5TG-3 Van Zandt I-20 US 64 SH 19 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TG-4 Van Zandt I-20 FM 17 CR 1311 0 48 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 3TG-5 Van Zandt I-20 CR 1311 FM 314 0 48 5 3 1 1 2 1 3 3TJ‐9 Van Zandt FM 859 - - 0 55 1 5 2 5 2 3 1 3
TJ-11 Van Zandt FM 47 - - 1 65 1 3 5 3 3 3 3 5TJ-12 Van Zandt FM 17 - - 1 58 1 5 3 1 2 3 3 5TJ-13 Van Zandt FM 1255 - - 0 55 3 5 5 1 1 3 1 3TJ-14 Van Zandt FM 773 - - 0 68 5 5 5 3 2 3 1 3
New Frontage Road AF-6 Van Zandt, Smith I-20 FM 314 SH 110 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3New Frontage Road AF-7 Smith I-20 Toll 49 US 271 8 53 5 5 1 1 2 1 3 3
TA-2 Smith US 69 - - 7 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TB-1 Van Zandt FM 314 - - 0 53 3 5 4 1 1 1 3 3TB-8 Smith CR 35 (Lavender Rd) - - 2 48 3 5 4 1 1 1 1 3TB-9 Smith FM 2015 - - 0 45 1 5 4 1 1 2 1 3TD-6 Smith CR 426 - - 0 45 1 5 3 1 1 3 1 3TD-7 Smith CR 431 - - 0 40 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 3TD-8 Smith SH 155 (Lawton Ave) - - 0 53 3 5 3 1 1 2 3 3TD-9 Smith FM 757 - - 0 35 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 3
TD-10 Smith CR 3101 - - 2 50 5 5 2 1 1 2 1 3TD-11 Smith CR 3111 - - 0 40 1 5 2 1 1 2 1 3TD-12 Smith FM 14 - - 0 45 1 5 2 1 1 2 3 3TC-15 Smith I-20 Van Zandt County Line CR 110 0 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-16 Smith I-20 CR 110 US 69 7 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-17 Smith I-20 US 69 FM 14 0 48 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-18 Smith I-20 FM 14 SH 155 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-19 Smith I-20 SH 155 US 271 0 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-20 Smith I-20 US 271 Smith County Line 1 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TJ-5 Smith SH 110 - - 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 3TJ-6 Smith FM 849 - - 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 3TG-6 Smith I-20 SH 110 FM 849 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TG-7 Smith I-20 US 271 Gregg County Line 1 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TG-8 Smith I-20 Gregg County Line SH 42 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-9 Smith CR 110 - - 0 55 3 5 1 1 1 5 3 3
TI-10 Smith FM 849 - - 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 3TI-11 Smith US 271 - - 0 45 1 5 1 1 1 3 3 3
Interchange Improvements AD-2 Gregg SH 31 - - 2 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TJ-1 Gregg Fritz Swanson RD - - 0 40 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 3TJ-2 Gregg MLK Blvd - - 0 53 1 5 3 3 1 2 1 5TJ-3 Gregg FM 2087 - - 0 58 3 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ‐15 Gregg MLK Blvd - - 0 48 1 5 3 3 2 1 1 3TG-9 Gregg I-20 SH 42 FM 2087 3 55 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 3TG-10 Gregg I-20 FM 2087 Loop 281 W 1 60 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TG-11 Gregg I-20 Loop 281 W County Line 0 60 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TI-12 Gregg FM 3053 - - 0 45 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 5TI-13 Gregg SH 42 - - 1 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-14 Gregg FM 2087 - - 0 58 3 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TI-15 Gregg Loop 281 W / US 259 - - 1 45 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-21 Gregg I-20 Smith County Line SH 135 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-22 Gregg I-20 SH 135 SH 42 2 58 5 5 1 1 2 1 5 3TC-23 Gregg I-20 SH 42 FM 2087 1 55 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 3TC-24 Gregg I-20 FM 2087 Gregg County Line 1 60 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5
SMITH
Frontage Road Reconstruction
Ramp Improvement
VAN ZANDT
Bridge Modifications
Bridge Modifications
Ramp Improvement
Frontage Road Reconstruction
Added Capacity
Interchange Improvements
Bridge Modifications
Added Capacity
GREG
G
Frontage Road Reconstruction
a Incidents within 1/2 a mile radius of an intersection have been assigned to its count. (2008‐2012)
b Bridge Database
c RHiNo 2012 Database AADT. DRAFT2
High Score (55<)
Mid Score (50‐54)
Low Score (50>)
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study
Project Evaluation ‐ DRAFT
12/31/2014
Project ID County Road Limit from Limit to Advisory
Committee Preferences
Technical Score
Fatalities aRatio (Crash
rate/Statewide Average)
Interchange Ratings
Vertical
Clearanceb
Mainlane Pavement
Condition Score
Bridge Condition
Average Annual Daily Truck
Traffic (2012) c
Volume to Capacity Ratio
(2012)Project Type
AF-8 Gregg, Harrison I-20 US 259 Loop 281 3 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3AF-9 Harrison I-20 FM 968 SH 43 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3AF-10 Harrison I-20 SH 43 FM 31 4 50 3 5 1 1 3 1 3 3AF-11 Harrison I-20 FM 31 Buck Sherrod Rd 2 45 1 3 1 1 5 1 3 3AF-12 Harrison I-20 US 80 FM 2199 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-25 Harrison I-20 Gregg County Line Loop 281 1 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-26 Harrison I-20 Loop 281 FM 450 1 55 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TC-27 Harrison I-20 FM 450 FM 3251 0 55 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TC-28 Harrison I-20 FM 3251 SH 43 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 3TC-29 Harrison I-20 SH 43 US 59 0 43 1 5 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-30 Harrison I-20 US 59 FM 31 1 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-31 Harrison I-20 FM 31 FM 2199 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-32 Harrison I-20 FM 2199 US 80 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-33 Harrison I-20 US 80 FM 134 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-34 Harrison I-20 FM 134 Texas State Line 0 45 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 5TJ-4 Harrison FM 450 - - 0 53 1 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ-7 Harrison Lansing Switch Road - - 0 50 1 5 1 1 1 3 5 3
TJ-16 Harrison FM 450 - - 0 58 3 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ-17 Harrison US 59 - - 0 53 1 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ-7 Harrison Lansing Switch Road - - 0 54 1 5 5 1 3 1 3
TG-12 Harrison I-20 County Line Loop 281 E 0 45 1 5 1 1 3 1 3 3TG-13 Harrison I-20 Loop 281 E FM 450 0 58 3 5 1 1 2 1 5 5TG-14 Harrison I-20 FM 450 FM 3251 0 60 3 5 1 1 3 1 5 5TG-15 Harrison I-20 US 80 Texas State Line 0 53 5 3 1 1 2 1 5 3TI-16 Harrison Loop 281 E - - 0 43 1 5 1 1 1 2 3 3TI-17 Harrison FM 3251 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-18 Harrison FM 31 - - 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-19 Harrison FM 2199 - - 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3
HARRISON
Bridge Modifications
New Frontage Road
Added Capacity
Ramp Improvements
Frontage Road Reconstruction
a Incidents within 1/2 a mile radius of an intersection have been assigned to its count. (2008‐2012)
b Bridge Database
c RHiNo 2012 Database AADT. DRAFT3
High Score (55<)
Mid Score (50‐54)
Low Score (50>)
ACI
AppeCosts -20 East Te
endix Estimxas Corrido
x F mates
r Study
Contents
1. Criteria for Cost Estimate Development
1.1. Cost Estimate Criteria and Assumptions
2. Cost Estimates
2.1. Frontage Road Reconstruction Costs
2.2. New Frontage Road Construction Costs
2.3. Interchange and Ramp Improvements Costs
2.4. Main lanes Reconstruction Costs
2.5. Costs for construction of Additional Main lanes and Reconstruction
of existing ones
2.6. Uncompliant Bridge Reconstruction Costs
2.7. Martin Luther King Rd. Bridge Removal Cost
1. Estimate Criteria and Assumptions I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
IH-20 COST ESTIMATES CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS
Described below are the design criteria used and the assumptions made during the I-20 East Texas Corridor cost estimating process.
PAVEMENTS Determining pavement costs involved a multi-step process.
1. Selection of pavement structure.
An asphalt pavement structure was used for ramps, frontage roads and cross-streets and consisted of: 2” HMA Surface Course (PG70-22), 4” HMA base course (PG64-22), 1-Course Surf. Treatment, Prime Coat, 14” Flex base and a 6” Cement Treated Subgrade.
A concrete pavement structure was used for the I-20 mainlanes and consisted of: 15” Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement, 4” HMA base (PG64-22) and 6” Cement Treated Subgrade.
2. Determine Material Cost/LF for each type of pavement structure in relation to the width of proposed pavement.
3. Determined Total Cost/LF for each pavement structure by taking a percentage of the material Cost/LF to account for un-measurable variables such as removal of the existing pavement (7%) and earthwork (20%). Pavement cost estimates are for:
Reconstructing the existing I-20 main lanes with no additional widening.
Widening the existing main lanes within the existing center median to accommodate a 10’ wide (8’ at bridge locations) inside shoulder and an additional 12’ wide travel lane in each direction separated by concrete traffic barrier.
Removing the existing main lanes and totally reconstructing with three 12’ wide travel lanes in each direction along with 10’ wide inside and outside shoulders.
Widening and overlaying existing frontage roads to accommodate two 12’ travel lanes, 4’ inside shoulders and 8’ outside shoulders. Proposed widening occurs in median area between existing frontage road and I-20 main lanes.
Constructing frontage roads in new locations.
Reconstructing existing entrance / exit ramps as a result of frontage road or main lane safety improvements.
RAMPS Construction cost estimates for ramp improvements were determined as previously described in the PAVEMENT section above. In addition to accommodating improvements to frontage roads and main lanes, cost estimates were also determined to bring existing ramps up to current design criteria. The TxDOT Roadway Design Manual was the primary source for obtaining the most current criteria. Figures 3-29, 3-31 and 3-36 were used to determine
lengths for tapers and acceleration / deceleration lengths. The AASHTO GREENBOOK was also used as a reference with regard to ramp geometry. In areas where the existing 2-way frontage road has been converted to 1-way, the existing hook configuration at the ramp/ frontage road tie-in was removed so as to allow for a smoother connection.
BRIDGES Cost estimates were made for removing, reconstructing and raising the cross-street bridge structures to achieve vertical clearances of 18’ and 23’ over the I-20 main lanes. Cost estimates are based on a COST/SF of the proposed bridge structure. The COST/ SF to raise a bridge to accommodate a 23’ vertical clearance is slightly higher to account for the additional column heights. Listed below are criteria and assumptions used in estimating the bridge construction costs:
Existing 2-lane structures are widened to a proposed width of 46’ to accommodate 2-12’ travel lanes and 2-10’ shoulders. This configuration allows for structures to be re-striped to 4-11’ lanes in the future.
Existing structures with a distance of less than 70’ between center and outside columns have been lengthened by 20’ at each end to allow for future widening of the I-20 main lanes.
Costs for Bridge Approach Slabs (CONC) were included in the estimates for each bridge.
Approach roadway reconstruction at each end of the bridge was estimated to the frontage road or ramp intersection. For several of the bridges being raised to a 23’ VC, the approach roadway reconstruction extends beyond the frontage road intersections.
At a couple of bridge locations, it was determined that median detours would be required in order to complete construction. It was decided at these locations to permanently widen the existing I-20 main lanes in the center median in lieu of constructing temporary detours.
Due to a lack of data required to perform earthwork computations, a contingency cost has been included in the estimates to cover this cost.
When possible, unit costs used in the estimates are TxDOT Average Low Bid Unit Prices for either the Tyler District or Statewide.
2. Cost Estimates I-20 East Texas Corridor Study
I-20 / MLK Blvd
Gregg Co.
Bridge Reconstruction
Construction Estimate
EST Unit Price Cost
104 2009 REMOVING CONC (RIPRAP) SY 620 50.00$ $31,000
496 2010 REMOV STR (BRIDGE 100 - 499 FT LENGTH) EA 1 500,000.00$ $500,000
502 2001 BARRICADES, SIGNS AND TRAFFIC HANDLING MO 6 8,000.00$ $48,000
508 2002 CONSTRUCTING DETOURS SY 0 100.00$ $0
540 2001 MTL W - BEAM GD FEN (TIM POST) LF 0 20.00$ $0
540 2044 DOWNSTREAM ANCHOR TERMINAL (DAT) SECTION EA 0 1,000.00$ $0
540 XXXX MTL W - BEAM GD FEN TRANS EA 0 1,500.00$ $0
542 2001 REMOVING METAL BEAM GUARD FENCE LF 0 3.00$ $0
542 2002 REMOVING TERMINAL ANCHOR SECTION EA 0 165.00$ $0
544 2003 GUARDRAIL END TREATMENT (REMOVE) EA 0 200.00$ $0
544 2001 GUARDRAIL END TREATMENT (INSTALL) EA 0 2,000.00$ $0
SUBTOTAL: $579,000
MOBILIZATION (10% OF ADJ SUBTOTAL less Barricades): $53,100.00
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%) $173,700
Contigency to also cover any repairs to existing FR
pavement caused by bridge removal.
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $805,800
LUMP SUM COSTS AS % OF CONSTRUCTION % of Construction
Engineering & Design 8.00% $64,464
Surveys 3.00% $24,174
General Construction Management 2.00% $16,116
QC/ Inspection/ Supervision 3.00% $24,174
Utility Adjustments 1.00% $8,058
SW3P 1.00% $8,058
Contingency (on Construction Cost and Lump Sum) 10.00% $94,279
TOTAL COST: $1,045,123
ITEM-
CODEDESCRIPTION
U
N
I
T
S
ITEM
NO.
DESC.
CODE
ATI
AppeTechn-20 East Te
endixnical W
xas Corrido
x E White
r Study
Paperrs
Contents
1. Criteria for evaluation of entrance and exit ramps along I-20 from I-635
east of Dallas to the Louisiana state line
2. I-20 SAM V.3 Traffic Forecast Refinement Memorandum
3. I-20 Bridge Structure Assessment Inventory
4. I-20 Sufficiency Rating Underscoring Bridges
November 12, 2013
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ENTRANCE AND EXIT RAMPS ALONG IH‐20 FROM
I‐635 EAST OF DALLAS TO THE LOUISIANA STATE LINE:
Many design conditions must be considered to determine the safety and reliability of entrance
and exit ramps along IH‐20. In order to make a determination of the acceptability of ramps
many design features such as available deceleration and acceleration lanes, added lanes at
ramps along the frontage roads, horizontal and vertical alignments, stopping sight distances
superelevation, traffic signs, crash data and traffic volumes. It is difficult to determine the
safety of ramps by looking at the ramp length only as many other design factors must be
examined to make a decision concerning safety.
The review of aerial photography along IH‐20 gave us some idea of the ramps that will require a
closer scrutiny. We have used available photographs and Google Maps to make a reasonable
determination if the ramp designs and length along IH 20 between I‐635 east of Dallas and the
Louisiana State line meet the desirable criteria for ramp design. In order to establish design
criteria for review of the ramps along IH‐20, we will look at the design criteria of entrance and
exit ramps separately.
EXIT RAMPS:
Exit ramps should allow adequate space along the outside mainlanes or on an added
deceleration lane adjacent to the mainlanes to allow the traffic to reduce speed prior to
reaching the exit ramp gore. The exit ramp should provide for a departure from the mainlanes
along the horizontal alignment of the ramp using a design radius of about 2,865 feet or a radius
required for a design speed of 70 MPH. Shorter radius is permitted by the TxDOT Roadway
Design Manual (TxDOT RDM) where the exit ramp connects to the Frontage Road (FR).
Reference to the TxDOT RDM should be used as each individual ramp is examined to meet the
present required design criteria.
The exit ramp should be long enough to comply with the required stopping and sight distance
requirements to reduce ramp traffic speeds from the mainlanes speeds to the frontage road
speeds. Reviewing the stopping sight distances from the TxDOT RDM the approximate stopping
or slowing distance from a mainlane speed of 70 MPH to a frontage speed of 35 MPH, the
stopping distance should be in the range of about 800 feet, plus or minus. This distance
assumes a near level profile. Much greater distances will be required for stopping on steeper
grades.
The exit ramp should next be evaluated as it connects to the intersecting street or frontage
road. If connecting to a frontage road (FR), the FR should have a dedicated lane for exit ramp
traffic by reducing the number of FR lanes or adding an additional lane from the exit ramp gore
with the frontage road to the intersecting cross road. This feature will increase the deceleration
distance considerably and not require a direct merger with the exit ramp traffic and a lane on
the FR. State law now requires that the FR traffic must yield to the exit ramp traffic with the
use of yield signs on the FR.
ENTRANCE RAMPS:
The horizontal and vertical alignments of entrance ramps should comply with the criteria
shown in the TxDOT RDM. When FR’s are present, a dedicated lane to enter the ramp is
desirable as it allows traffic to accelerate sooner and not interfere with the FR traffic. Adequate
acceleration distance is required at the merge between the mainlane traffic and the entrance
ramp traffic. Under high traffic conditions the merger distance should be considerably longer
that in low traffic rural areas. Adequate distance must be provided along the ramp so that
ramp traffic can reach the mainlane design speed prior to merging with the mainlane traffic.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
For the purpose of this study the entrance or exit ramps will be defined as HOOK or SLIP Ramps.
A Hook ramp will have a short radius curve at the point the ramp ties to the frontage road. A
Slip Ramp will have a longer radius curve at the ramp and frontage road intersection and can be
negotiated at higher speeds than the Hook Ramp. To conserve space in the blocks of the
following study chart, abbreviations are used as follows: Frontage Road (FR), Mainlane (ML),
Deceleration (Dec.), Acceleration (Acc.), as well as others.
The acceleration and deceleration rating are purely subjective and are usually determined by
the length of the ramp and the horizontal alignment of the ramp. The TxDOT RDM gives design
parameters for acceleration and deceleration distances on entrance and exit in the Design
Speed section on Figure 3‐36. The ratings used in the study are mostly subjective and based on
the vehicle decelerating or accelerating at a more normal speed and not on the minimum
distances shown in the TxDOT RDM. These ratings are subjective and take into consideration
the horizontal alignment of the entrance and exit ramps. The ratings used are as follows: A =
Excellent, B = Meets minimum standard, C = Acceptable and D = below minimum Standard.
The total acceleration and deceleration lengths were measured using Google Maps and
measured from the point of paint where the frontage road or mainlane paint stripe and the
ramp paint stripes meet. In some cases a wider paint stripe separating the mainlane from the
ramp was carried along the entrance ramps well beyond the usual location to stop the paint.
This was done to improve the acceleration distance but may have reduced the mainlane merge
distance; however in most cases the merge distance meets the design standard.
I-20 SAM v.3 Traffic Forecast Refinement Memo (DRAFT)
As part of the long range planning process for I-20 in East Texas, the Statewide Analysis Model (SAM) was used to
develop traffic forecasts along 155 miles of I-20. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the current input files
(including a very coarse traffic analysis zone structure), the resulting forecasts did not appear reasonable. In some
instances, forecast year (2040) traffic volumes did not exceed current traffic counts performed by TxDOT. Further
investigation determined that 2010 traffic output from SAM was less than these current traffic counts. The
following memo describes the current model deficiencies and recommends a methodology for adjusting output to
produce more reasonable forecasts.
Actual Traffic Counts versus Base Year Model Traffic (2010)
SAM v.3 has a 2010 base year. The base year model traffic counts were compared against the actual 2010 traffic
counts. The comparison revealed differences in traffic generated by the model and actual traffic as shown in Table
1 below. Since the base year model underestimates volumes for I-20, the same relationships should be expected
to be true for future year forecast (2040).
Table 1: Comparison of Existing Traffic Counts with Base Year Model Volumes
I-20 Location (West to East)
Object ID Existing Counts 2010
SAM Assigned Volume 2010
% Difference (2010 counts vs
SAM)
Unadjusted SAM Assigned Volume
2040* West of FM 148 78075 25,000 24,397 -2% 35,591
East of FM 148 78228 24,000 16,555 -31% 24,911
West of SH 34 78207 46,000 32,626 -29% 58,681
West of FM 2728 78052 43,000 38,745 -10% 59,538
West of FM 147 78388 35,000 28,347 -19% 39,566
West of SH 64 78001 35,000 27,342 -22% 39,990
East of SH 64 79028 34,000 19,948 -41% 28,382
East of FM 1255 79112 32,000 24,536 -23% 34,680
East of FM 314 76380 31,000 23,679 -24% 33,280
West of CR 426 77907 31,000 23,679 -24% 33,280
East of SH 110 77953 33,000 21,598 -35% 32,911
West of FM 849 77960 34,000 21,286 -37% 32,788
East of US 69 80812 27,000 19,170 -29% 26,531
West of FM 2015 80980 27,000 15,948 -41% 21,441
East of FM 3311 81001 25,000 15,163 -39% 23,242
West of US 271 80411 25,000 15,163 -39% 23,242
West of Toll 49 (Future) 81117 30,000 22,512 -25% 38,193
West of FM 3053 81251 30,000 22,043 -27% 27,756
West of SH 42 79955 31,5001 19,738 -37% 26,407
East of US 259 82056 31,000 24,884 -20% 32,462
East of FM 2011 82059 31,000 25,965 -16% 32,014
East of SL 281 82208 33,000 29,619 -10% 39,020
East of US 259 82216 34,000 31,317 -8% 41,056
East of FM 3251 82384 31,000 29,145 -6% 36,870
1 2007 count = 32,000; 2008 count = 30,000; 2009 count = 28,000; 2010 count = 18,400; 2011 count = 35,000; 2012 count = 32,000
Based on the above actual counts, 2010 appears to be an error. An average of 2009 and 2011 was used in place of the 2010 count. This averaged value is calculated to be 31,500.
East of FM 31 87514 32,000 29,131 -9% 38,704
East of FM 2199 87485 30,000 28,624 -5% 38,400
West of FM 134 87385 35,000 34,185 -2% 47,020
East of FM 134 87583 33,000 29,685 -10% 42,548 * Bold numbers represent 2040 volumes lower than 2010 actual counts
The base year model volumes are lower (ranging from -2% to -41%). For an interstate facility like I-20, this
difference is substantial -- equivalent to several thousand vehicles per day in most instances. In some instances,
the 2040 SAM Assigned volumes are lower than the 2010 traffic counts (shown in Bold in Table 1). In order to
address this inconsistency in traffic forecasts, two methods have been proposed below:
1. Linear Regression of 2010 Counts and 2010 SAM Assigned Volumes: The travel demand modeling
performed by Alliance provided lower volumes compared to existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for
portions of I-20 for the base year (2010) and also the forecast year (2040) in some instances. The
methodology proposed by Alliance to adjust the 2010 and 2040 model output is presented in the memo
titled “Adjustment Factor Methodology” and is attached to this draft memo. The results of this
methodology are shown in Table 2 in the column labeled “Adjusted Volume 2010” and “Adjusted Volume
2040”.
2. Forecast using SAM calculated CAGR and 2010 ADTs: The second method is built on the assumption that
though SAM Assigned 2010 volumes do not match the 2010 Counts, the relationship between the SAM
Assigned 2010 volumes and SAM Assigned 2040 volumes provides an accurate representation of the rate
of growth expected along the I-20 corridor. With this in mind, the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
was calculated between the 2040 SAM Assigned Volumes and the 2010 SAM Assigned volumes for each
link. This CAGR was then applied to the 2010 Counts for 30 years to develop the 2040 Modified Forecasts.
The resulting 2040 forecast is shown in Table 2 in the column labeled “Modified Volume 2040”.
Table 2: Comparison of Traffic Projections based on Linear Regression and CAGR
Location (West to East) Object
ID Counts 2010
Linear Regression Methodology CAGR
Methodology
Adjusted Volume 2010
Adjusted Volume 2040*
Modified Volume 2040
West of FM 148 78075 25,000 30,973 38,653 36,500
East of FM 148 78228 24,000 25,593 31,325 36,100
West of SH 34 78207 46,000 36,619 54,495 82,700
West of FM 2728 78052 43,000 40,817 55,083 66,100
West of FM 147 78388 35,000 33,683 41,381 48,900
West of SH 64 78001 35,000 32,993 41,671 51,200
East of SH 64 79028 34,000 27,920 33,707 48,400
East of FM 1255 79112 32,000 31,068 38,028 45,200
East of FM 314 76380 31,000 30,480 37,068 43,600
West of CR 426 77907 31,000 30,480 37,068 43,600
East of SH 110 77953 33,000 29,052 36,814 50,300
West of FM 849 77960 34,000 28,838 36,730 52,400
East of US 69 80812 27,000 27,386 32,437 37,400
West of FM 2015 80980 27,000 25,176 28,945 36,300
East of FM 3311 81001 25,000 24,637 30,181 38,300
West of US 271 80411 25,000 24,637 30,181 38,300
West of Toll 49 (Future) 81117 30,000 29,679 40,439 50,900
West of FM 3053 81251 30,000 29,357 33,277 37,800
West of SH 42 79955 31,500 27,776 32,352 42,100
East of US 259 82056 31,000 31,307 36,506 40,400
East of FM 2011 82059 31,000 32,048 36,198 38,200
East of SL 281 82208 33,000 34,555 41,006 43,500
East of US 259 82216 34,000 35,720 42,402 44,600
East of FM 3251 82384 31,000 34,231 39,530 39,200
East of FM 31 87514 32,000 34,221 40,789 42,500
East of FM 2199 87485 30,000 33,873 40,580 40,200
West of FM 134 87385 35,000 37,689 46,494 48,100
East of FM 134 87583 33,000 34,601 43,426 47,300 * Bold numbers represent 2040 volumes lower than 2010 actual counts
Recommendation: Based on the above two methodologies, the recommendation is to use the CAGR
based refinement to 2040 traffic volumes. The benefit of this method is that it uses the actual traffic as
the base volume, and utilizes the benefit of SAM’s ability to allocate future growth.
ITEM 43 ITEM 54 ITEM 64 ITEM 120 ITEM 121
BRIDGE NAME BRIDGE TYPEVERTICAL CLEARANCE
(FT)OPERATING RATING DEFICIENT SUFFICIENCY RATING
STRUCTURE AREA
(FT2)
RECOMMENDED
ACTIONSTRUCTURE TYPE
1 LENGTH2
(FT)
WIDTH3
(FT)
STRUCTURE COST
(2014 $)TOTAL COST
Fritz Swanson Rd Underpass 4-span P/S bm 16'-1" HS27 95.0 25.7 Replace TX-Girder 247.0 42.0 $622,440.00 $1,313,164.56
FM 2087 Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-0" HS24 84.1 35.3 Replace TX-Girder 325.0 42.0 $819,000.00 $1,727,848.10
MLK Blvd Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-0" HS20 Functionally Obsolete 84.8 64.0 Replace TX-Girder 297.0 42.0 $748,440.00 $1,578,987.34
Willow Branch Rd Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-1" HS20 68.3 25.5 Replace TX-Girder 241.0 42.0 $607,320.00 $1,281,265.82
SH 110 Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-1" HS20 68.6 31.2 Replace TX-Girder 299.0 42.0 $753,480.00 $1,589,620.25
FM 849 Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-0" HS23 Functionally Obsolete 66.8 25.5 Replace TX-Girder 317.0 42.0 $798,840.00 $1,685,316.46
Wiggins Crk Branch Culvert Multi Box Culvert N/A HS29 Structurally Deficient 68.2 N/A Extend w/I-20 expansion N/A N/A N/A $0.00$0.00
FM 47 Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-1" HS23 Functionally Obsolete 65.5 25.7 Replace TX-Girder 267.0 42.0 $672,840.00 $1,419,493.67
FM 17 Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-8" HS20 Functionally Obsolete 56.5 25.5 Replace TX-Girder 241.0 42.0 $607,320.00 $1,281,265.82
FM 1255 Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-7" HS24 Functionally Obsolete 65.5 25.5 Replace TX-Girder 317.0 42.0 $798,840.00 $1,685,316.46
FM 773 Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-1" HS20 67.2 25.7 Replace TX-Girder 241.0 42.0 $607,320.00 $1,281,265.82
Little Sandy Crk Culvert Multi Box Culvert N/A HS27 66.7 N/A Extend w/I-20 expansion N/A N/A N/A $0.00$0.00
SH 34 SB Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-7" HS27 Functionally Obsolete 63.3 31.1 Replace TX-Girder 351.0 42.0 $884,520.00 $1,866,075.95
FM 2965 Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-5" HS26 Functionally Obsolete 69.6 25.7 Replace TX-Girder 352.0 42.0 $887,040.00 $1,871,392.41
FM 450 Underpass 4-span P/S bm 15'-11" HS27 Functionally Obsolete 71.2 32.7 Replace TX-Girder 246.0 42.0 $619,920.00 $1,307,848.10
Lansing Switch Rd Uperpass 4-span P/S bm 16'-3" HS27 66.6 27.2 Replace TX-Girder 277.0 42.0 $698,040.00 $1,472,658.23
Cox Crk Culvert Multi Box Culvert N/A HS27 69 N/A Extend w/I-20 expansion N/A N/A N/A $0.00$0.00
Butler Crk Culvert Multi Box Culvert N/A HS27 69 N/A Extend w/I-20 expansion N/A N/A N/A $0.00$0.00
Total: $10,125,360.00 $21,361,518.99
I-20 (LP 635 to LA STATELINE) BRIDGE STRUCTURE ASSESMENT INVENTORY
Notes:
1. Tx-Girders (prestressed concrete) were developed to span further with a shallower depth making them competive with steel when vertical clearance beneath the structure is an issue
2. Based on existing bridge length plus 15' to avoid existing substructure
3. Based on 2-12' lanes with 8' shoulders and 1' nominal rail width. If 10' shoulders are desirable, add $240/LnFt of bridge length to cost.
REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE
I-20 Bridge Inventory Summary
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-149Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 093
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 07
11 Milepnt: 04885
8 6 Str No: 254
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0584
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00862
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int:
(007-0) Facility Carried
FRITZ SWANSON RD
(009-0) Location
2.35 MI W OF SH 42
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1701
DI
10
CO
093
CONT
0495
SC
07
STR
254
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32255646
17 Longitude: 094540844
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 05
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049507002
26 Func Class: 11
27 Yr Built: 1966
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 034680
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 2
32 Appr Width: 020
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 00
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 1000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 1131
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty: 1131
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 341
44 2 Sub MjAprSp: 341
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 002
45 2 No MjAprSp: 002
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0542
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0065
49 Str Lgth: 000232
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0235
52 Deck Width: 0257
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1601
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 107
56 Lt Lat Clear: 194
58 Deck Cond: 7
59 Super Cond: 7
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 249
65 RdAppr Cond: 7
66 Inv Rate: 236
67 Str Eval: 7
68 Deck Geom: 5
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNNN
96 1 Cost Improv:
90 Last Inspec: 01232013
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000000
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: 1
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: 688
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 29
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 048550
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0950
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: Y
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495072542126 Dist Use: A
8 4A IR Control: AA00
8 5A IR Section: 67
11A IR Milept: 00500
8 6A IR Str No: 254
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 21
5 4A IR Hwy No: 0000
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0235
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 02
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 06
29A IR AADT: 000050
30A IR AADT Yr: 2010
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 05
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 000100
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2030
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3243235131
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09490234394
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-1421Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 093
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 07
11 Milepnt: 11509
8 6 Str No: 285
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0591
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00478
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int: 197405
(007-0) Facility Carried
FM 2087
(009-0) Location
2.32 MILES EAST OF SH 31
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1706
DI
10
CO
093
CONT
0495
SC
07
STR
285
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32260161
17 Longitude: 094472156
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 05
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049507003
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1967
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 033240
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 034
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 45
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 0000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 61
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 341
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0566
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0085
49 Str Lgth: 000310
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0330
52 Deck Width: 0353
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1600
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 105
56 Lt Lat Clear: 060
58 Deck Cond: 6
59 Super Cond: 6
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 243
65 RdAppr Cond: 6
66 Inv Rate: 226
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: 4
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 6
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNN2
96 1 Cost Improv:
90 Last Inspec: 01212013
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost:
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 30
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 046540
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0841
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: Y
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495072852126 Dist Use: A
8 4A IR Control: 1931
8 5A IR Section: 01
11A IR Milept: 03264
8 6A IR Str No: 285
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15
5 4A IR Hwy No: 2087
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk: 0284
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign: +
11 4C IR RfMkDispl: 01267
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0330
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 01
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 04
29A IR AADT: 003600
30A IR AADT Yr: 2011
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 06
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 006840
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2031
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3243378092
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09478932208
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 1
65 1 MethInvRate: 1
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-1435Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 093
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 07
11 Milepnt: 15922
8 6 Str No: 299
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0595
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00949
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int:
(007-0) Facility Carried
MLK BLVD
(009-0) Location
0.30 MI E OF SH 322
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1802
DI
10
CO
093
CONT
0495
SC
07
STR
299
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32264952
17 Longitude: 094425963
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 05
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049507006
26 Func Class: 21
27 Yr Built: 1967
28 1 Lanes On: 04
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 034510
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 052
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 26
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 1000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 341
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0656
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0087
49 Str Lgth: 000282
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 049
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 049
51 Rdwy Width: 0520
52 Deck Width: 0640
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1600
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 058
56 Lt Lat Clear: 560
58 Deck Cond: 7
59 Super Cond: 6
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 237
65 RdAppr Cond: 7
66 Inv Rate: 227
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: 4
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 3
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNN2
96 1 Cost Improv:
90 Last Inspec: 01212013
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost:
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 29
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 048310
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs: O
121 Suff Rate: 0848
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: Y
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495072992126 Dist Use: A
8 4A IR Control: E000
8 5A IR Section: 21
11A IR Milept: 00500
8 6A IR Str No: 299
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 31
5 4A IR Hwy No: 0000
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0520
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 00
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 06
29A IR AADT: 000200
30A IR AADT Yr: 2010
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 05
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 000400
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2030
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3244708835
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09471656466
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 1
65 1 MethInvRate: 1
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-1440Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 212
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 04
11 Milepnt: 00547
8 6 Str No: 044
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0544
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00390
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int:
(007-0) Facility Carried
WILLOW BRANCH RD
(009-0) Location
0.5 MI E OF VAN ZANDT CL
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1604
DI
10
CO
212
CONT
0495
SC
04
STR
044
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32295439
17 Longitude: 095350507
19 Detour Lgth: 02
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 10
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049504001
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1961
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 032120
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 2
32 Appr Width: 024
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 15
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 1000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 361
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0530
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0062
49 Str Lgth: 000226
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0234
52 Deck Width: 0255
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1601
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 097
56 Lt Lat Clear: 189
58 Deck Cond: 7
59 Super Cond: 6
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 237
65 RdAppr Cond: 7
66 Inv Rate: 222
67 Str Eval: 5
68 Deck Geom: 4
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381
76 Lgth Improv: 000226
88 Spec Flags: NNN21961
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 04092013
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost: 000010
95 Rd Impr Cost: 000003
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000013
97 YrImpr Cost Est: 2009
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 32
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 044970
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0683
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: N
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495040442126 Dist Use: A
8 4A IR Control: AA04
8 5A IR Section: 26
11A IR Milept: 00500
8 6A IR Str No: 044
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 21
5 4A IR Hwy No: 0426
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0234
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 00
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 06
29A IR AADT: 000470
30A IR AADT Yr: 2013
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 00
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 000700
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2033
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3249844186
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09558474297
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 1
65 1 MethInvRate: 1
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-1447Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 212
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 04
11 Milepnt: 04310
8 6 Str No: 051
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0548
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00158
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int: 198112
(007-0) Facility Carried
SH 110
(009-0) Location
4.3 MI E OF VAN ZANDT CL
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1609
DI
10
CO
212
CONT
0495
SC
04
STR
051
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32285967
17 Longitude: 095312094
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 10
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049504001
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1961
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 032120
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 028
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 30
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 1000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 361
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0547
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0077
49 Str Lgth: 000284
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0278
52 Deck Width: 0312
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1601
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 108
56 Lt Lat Clear: 190
58 Deck Cond: 6
59 Super Cond: 6
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 236
65 RdAppr Cond: 6
66 Inv Rate: 221
67 Str Eval: 5
68 Deck Geom: 4
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNN21961
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 04092013
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost:
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 32
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 044970
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0686
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: N
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495040512126 Dist Use: A
8 4A IR Control: 0505
8 5A IR Section: 02
11A IR Milept: 06263
8 6A IR Str No: 051
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 13
5 4A IR Hwy No: 0110
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk: 0290
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign: +
11 4C IR RfMkDispl: 01842
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0278
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 03
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 03
29A IR AADT: 002700
30A IR AADT Yr: 2013
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 10
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 003780
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2033
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3248324069
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09552248411
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 2
65 1 MethInvRate: 2
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-1452Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 212
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 04
11 Milepnt: 08533
8 6 Str No: 056
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0552
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00377
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int: 197405
(007-0) Facility Carried
FM 849
(009-0) Location
4.2 MI E OF SH 110
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1804
DI
10
CO
212
CONT
0495
SC
04
STR
056
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32281050
17 Longitude: 095271106
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 10
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049504002
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1962
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 031790
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 2
32 Appr Width: 022
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 45
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 1000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 361
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0560
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0085
49 Str Lgth: 000302
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0231
52 Deck Width: 0255
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1600
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 106
56 Lt Lat Clear: 193
58 Deck Cond: 7
59 Super Cond: 6
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 242
65 RdAppr Cond: 7
66 Inv Rate: 225
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: 2
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381
76 Lgth Improv: 000302
88 Spec Flags: NNN21962
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 03072013
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost: 000014
95 Rd Impr Cost: 000004
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000018
97 YrImpr Cost Est: 2009
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 32
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 044510
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs: O
121 Suff Rate: 0668
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: N
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495040562126 Dist Use: A
8 4A IR Control: 0429
8 5A IR Section: 05
11A IR Milept: 04299
8 6A IR Str No: 056
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15
5 4A IR Hwy No: 0849
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk: 0284
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign: +
11 4C IR RfMkDispl: 00276
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0231
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 01
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 04
29A IR AADT: 002700
30A IR AADT Yr: 2011
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 05
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 003780
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2031
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3246958358
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09545307258
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 1
65 1 MethInvRate: 1
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-1477Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 212
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 05
11 Milepnt: 19628
8 6 Str No: 149
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0563
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00437
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
WIGGINS CREEK BRANCH
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int:
(007-0) Facility Carried
IH 20 WB
(009-0) Location
7.3 MI E OF US 69
10 RtMinVrtClear: 9999
DI
10
CO
212
CONT
0495
SC
05
STR
149
DUP
0
STR-F
1
16 Latitude: 32270813
17 Longitude: 095155496
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 10
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049505001
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1964
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 00
29 AADT: 011990
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 040
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 00
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 0N01
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: 0
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 15
43 1 Mn Span Ty:
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type: 23
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan:
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 003
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0003
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0400
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0010
49 Str Lgth: 000033
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0000
52 Deck Width: 0000
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: N
54 2 VrtClr Under: 0000
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: N
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 999
56 Lt Lat Clear: 000
58 Deck Cond: N
59 Super Cond: N
60 SubstrCond: N
61 Chan Prot: 5
62 Culvert: 4
64 Oper Rate: 248
65 RdAppr Cond: 5
66 Inv Rate: 235
67 Str Eval: 4
68 Deck Geom: N
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: 6
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNNN
96 1 Cost Improv:
90 Last Inspec: 03212013
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000000
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: L
102 Dir of Traffic: 1
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: N
108 1 MSp WrSurf: NNN
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 35
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: 8
114 Future AADT: 016790
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs: D
121 Suff Rate: 0682
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg:
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495051491126 Dist Use: C
8 4A IR Control:
8 5A IR Section:
11A IR Milept:
8 6A IR Str No:
8 3A IR Dupl Over:
5 1A IR Str Funct:
5 3A IR Designation:
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys:
5 4A IR Hwy No:
5 5A IR Dir:
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear:
10A IR MnVrtClear:
19A IR Byps Lgth:
20A IR Toll:
26A IR Func Class:
29A IR AADT:
30A IR AADT Yr:
100A IR DefHwy Des:
101A IR Parl Str:
102A IR Traf Dir:
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS:
109A IR AADTTrkPct:
110A IR Natl Ntwk:
114A IR Fut AADT:
115A IR FAADT Yr:
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 1
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3245225925
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09526526768
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-1488Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 212
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 05
11 Milepnt: 27340
8 6 Str No: 177
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0571
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00296
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
US 271
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int: 198112
(007-0) Facility Carried
IH 20 WB
(009-0) Location
3.3 MI E OF SH 155
10 RtMinVrtClear: 9999
DI
10
CO
212
CONT
0495
SC
05
STR
177
DUP
0
STR-F
1
16 Latitude: 32262831
17 Longitude: 095080272
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 10
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049505002
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1964
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 05
29 AADT: 012190
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 5
32 Appr Width: 038
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 45
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 1111
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 361
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0300
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0093
49 Str Lgth: 000321
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0300
52 Deck Width: 0330
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1411
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 090
56 Lt Lat Clear: 100
58 Deck Cond: 7
59 Super Cond: 5
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 249
65 RdAppr Cond: 7
66 Inv Rate: 236
67 Str Eval: 5
68 Deck Geom: 4
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNN21964
96 1 Cost Improv:
90 Last Inspec: 03062013
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000000
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: L
102 Dir of Traffic: 1
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 34
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 017070
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0662
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: Y
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495051771126 Dist Use: A
8 4A IR Control: 0165
8 5A IR Section: 02
11A IR Milept: 10002
8 6A IR Str No: 177
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 2
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 12
5 4A IR Hwy No: 0271
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk: 0316
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign: +
11 4C IR RfMkDispl: 00002
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0580
10A IR MnVrtClear: 1802
19A IR Byps Lgth: 01
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 03
29A IR AADT: 005420
30A IR AADT Yr: 2011
100A IR DefHwy Des: 2
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 19
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 008380
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2031
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 1
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3244119647
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09513408833
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-1497Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 212
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 06
11 Milepnt: 33831
8 6 Str No: 236
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0577
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00534
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
CANEY CREEK
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int:
(007-0) Facility Carried
IH 20 ML
(009-0) Location
6.2 MI E OF US 271
10 RtMinVrtClear: 9999
DI
10
CO
212
CONT
0495
SC
06
STR
236
DUP
0
STR-F
1
16 Latitude: 32261549
17 Longitude: 095014524
19 Detour Lgth: 05
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 10
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049506001
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1966
28 1 Lanes On: 04
28 2 Lanes Under: 00
29 AADT: 029790
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 078
33 Median: 3
34 Skew: 00
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 0N00
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: 0
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 15
43 1 Mn Span Ty:
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type: 23
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan:
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 003
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0003
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0399
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0010
49 Str Lgth: 000033
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0000
52 Deck Width: 0000
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: N
54 2 VrtClr Under: 0000
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: N
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 999
56 Lt Lat Clear: 000
58 Deck Cond: N
59 Super Cond: N
60 SubstrCond: N
61 Chan Prot: 5
62 Culvert: 6
64 Oper Rate: 248
65 RdAppr Cond: 7
66 Inv Rate: 235
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: N
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: 6
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNNN
96 1 Cost Improv:
90 Last Inspec: 04022013
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000000
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: N
108 1 MSp WrSurf: NNN
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 31
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: 8
114 Future AADT: 041710
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0678
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg:
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495062361126 Dist Use: C
8 4A IR Control:
8 5A IR Section:
11A IR Milept:
8 6A IR Str No:
8 3A IR Dupl Over:
5 1A IR Str Funct:
5 3A IR Designation:
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys:
5 4A IR Hwy No:
5 5A IR Dir:
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear:
10A IR MnVrtClear:
19A IR Byps Lgth:
20A IR Toll:
26A IR Func Class:
29A IR AADT:
30A IR AADT Yr:
100A IR DefHwy Des:
101A IR Parl Str:
102A IR Traf Dir:
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS:
109A IR AADTTrkPct:
110A IR Natl Ntwk:
114A IR Fut AADT:
115A IR FAADT Yr:
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 1
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3243763521
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09502923448
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14111Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 234
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 02
11 Milepnt: 04634
8 6 Str No: 019
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0518
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00090
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
FLAT CRK TR
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int:
(007-0) Facility Carried
IH 20
(009-0) Location
4.63 MI E OF KAUFMAN C/L
10 RtMinVrtClear: 9999
DI
10
CO
234
CONT
0495
SC
02
STR
019
DUP
0
STR-F
1
16 Latitude: 32373180
17 Longitude: 096000866
19 Detour Lgth: 05
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 02
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049502001
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1963
28 1 Lanes On: 04
28 2 Lanes Under: 00
29 AADT: 035270
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 077
33 Median: 3
34 Skew: 00
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 0N01
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: 0
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 15
43 1 Mn Span Ty:
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type: 23
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan:
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 002
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0002
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0396
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0010
49 Str Lgth: 000021
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0000
52 Deck Width: 0000
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: N
54 2 VrtClr Under: 0000
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: N
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 999
56 Lt Lat Clear: 000
58 Deck Cond: N
59 Super Cond: N
60 SubstrCond: N
61 Chan Prot: 7
62 Culvert: 6
64 Oper Rate: 249
65 RdAppr Cond: 6
66 Inv Rate: 236
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: N
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: 9
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNNN
96 1 Cost Improv:
90 Last Inspec: 11142012
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000000
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 30
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: 8
114 Future AADT: 049380
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0690
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg:
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495020191126 Dist Use: C
8 4A IR Control:
8 5A IR Section:
11A IR Milept:
8 6A IR Str No:
8 3A IR Dupl Over:
5 1A IR Str Funct:
5 3A IR Designation:
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys:
5 4A IR Hwy No:
5 5A IR Dir:
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear:
10A IR MnVrtClear:
19A IR Byps Lgth:
20A IR Toll:
26A IR Func Class:
29A IR AADT:
30A IR AADT Yr:
100A IR DefHwy Des:
101A IR Parl Str:
102A IR Traf Dir:
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS:
109A IR AADTTrkPct:
110A IR Natl Ntwk:
114A IR Fut AADT:
115A IR FAADT Yr:
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 1
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3262550009
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09600240513
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14115Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 234
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 02
11 Milepnt: 05167
8 6 Str No: 023
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0518
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00623
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
ANDY BR FLAT CRK
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int:
(007-0) Facility Carried
IH 20 ML
(009-0) Location
1.78 MI E OF FM 47
10 RtMinVrtClear: 9999
DI
10
CO
234
CONT
0495
SC
02
STR
023
DUP
0
STR-F
1
16 Latitude: 32372156
17 Longitude: 095593812
19 Detour Lgth: 05
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 02
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049502001
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1963
28 1 Lanes On: 04
28 2 Lanes Under: 00
29 AADT: 035270
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 077
33 Median: 3
34 Skew: 00
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 0N01
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: 0
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 15
43 1 Mn Span Ty:
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type: 23
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan:
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 003
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0003
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0403
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0010
49 Str Lgth: 000031
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0000
52 Deck Width: 0000
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: N
54 2 VrtClr Under: 0000
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: N
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 999
56 Lt Lat Clear: 000
58 Deck Cond: N
59 Super Cond: N
60 SubstrCond: N
61 Chan Prot: 7
62 Culvert: 6
64 Oper Rate: 249
65 RdAppr Cond: 6
66 Inv Rate: 236
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: N
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: 9
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNNN
96 1 Cost Improv:
90 Last Inspec: 11142012
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000000
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 30
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: 8
114 Future AADT: 049380
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0690
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg:
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495020231126 Dist Use: C
8 4A IR Control:
8 5A IR Section:
11A IR Milept:
8 6A IR Str No:
8 3A IR Dupl Over:
5 1A IR Str Funct:
5 3A IR Designation:
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys:
5 4A IR Hwy No:
5 5A IR Dir:
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear:
10A IR MnVrtClear:
19A IR Byps Lgth:
20A IR Toll:
26A IR Func Class:
29A IR AADT:
30A IR AADT Yr:
100A IR DefHwy Des:
101A IR Parl Str:
102A IR Traf Dir:
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS:
109A IR AADTTrkPct:
110A IR Natl Ntwk:
114A IR Fut AADT:
115A IR FAADT Yr:
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 1
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3262265430
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09599392190
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14121Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 234
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 02
11 Milepnt: 08424
8 6 Str No: 029
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0522
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00008
4 Place Code: 07150
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int:
(007-0) Facility Carried
CR 2142/CR 3442
(009-0) Location
1.22 MI W OF SH 64
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1701
DI
10
CO
234
CONT
0495
SC
02
STR
029
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32361283
17 Longitude: 095562867
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 02
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049502004
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1963
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 035270
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 024
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 11
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 1000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 341
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0553
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0060
49 Str Lgth: 000222
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0233
52 Deck Width: 0257
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1608
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 111
56 Lt Lat Clear: 200
58 Deck Cond: 7
59 Super Cond: 7
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 238
65 RdAppr Cond: 7
66 Inv Rate: 223
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: 5
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 5
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNN2
96 1 Cost Improv:
90 Last Inspec: 11142012
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost:
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 30
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 049380
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0833
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: N
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495020292126 Dist Use: A
8 4A IR Control: AA01
8 5A IR Section: 28
11A IR Milept: 00500
8 6A IR Str No: 029
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 21
5 4A IR Hwy No: 3442
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0233
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 00
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 06
29A IR AADT: 000100
30A IR AADT Yr: 2010
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 05
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 000200
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2030
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3260356381
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09594129601
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14122Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 234
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 02
11 Milepnt: 09158
8 6 Str No: 031
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0522
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00742
4 Place Code: 07150
(006-1) Feature Crossed
RATS BR CANEY CRK
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int:
(007-0) Facility Carried
IH 20 ML and FR
(009-0) Location
0.51 MI W OF SH 64
10 RtMinVrtClear: 9999
DI
10
CO
234
CONT
0495
SC
02
STR
031
DUP
0
STR-F
1
16 Latitude: 32355849
17 Longitude: 095554856
19 Detour Lgth: 05
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 02
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049502004
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1963
28 1 Lanes On: 08
28 2 Lanes Under: 00
29 AADT: 035270
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 125
33 Median: 3
34 Skew: 30
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 0000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: 0
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 15
43 1 Mn Span Ty:
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type: 23
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan:
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0423
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0010
49 Str Lgth: 000049
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0000
52 Deck Width: 0000
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: N
54 2 VrtClr Under: 0000
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: N
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 999
56 Lt Lat Clear: 000
58 Deck Cond: N
59 Super Cond: N
60 SubstrCond: N
61 Chan Prot: 6
62 Culvert: 6
64 Oper Rate: 249
65 RdAppr Cond: 8
66 Inv Rate: 236
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: N
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: 9
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNNN
96 1 Cost Improv:
90 Last Inspec: 11142012
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000000
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 5
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: N
108 1 MSp WrSurf: NNN
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 30
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: 8
114 Future AADT: 049380
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0670
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg:
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495020311126 Dist Use: C
8 4A IR Control:
8 5A IR Section:
11A IR Milept:
8 6A IR Str No:
8 3A IR Dupl Over:
5 1A IR Str Funct:
5 3A IR Designation:
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys:
5 4A IR Hwy No:
5 5A IR Dir:
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear:
10A IR MnVrtClear:
19A IR Byps Lgth:
20A IR Toll:
26A IR Func Class:
29A IR AADT:
30A IR AADT Yr:
100A IR DefHwy Des:
101A IR Parl Str:
102A IR Traf Dir:
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS:
109A IR AADTTrkPct:
110A IR Natl Ntwk:
114A IR Fut AADT:
115A IR FAADT Yr:
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 1
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3259957963
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09593015447
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 2002
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14129Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 234
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 02
11 Milepnt: 03384
8 6 Str No: 306
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0516
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00826
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int: 197405
(007-0) Facility Carried
FM 47
(009-0) Location
3.38 MI E OF KAUFMAN C/L
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1605
DI
10
CO
234
CONT
0495
SC
02
STR
306
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32375712
17 Longitude: 096011883
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 02
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049502001
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1963
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 036350
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 2
32 Appr Width: 023
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 30
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 1000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 341
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0548
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0070
49 Str Lgth: 000252
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0233
52 Deck Width: 0257
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1601
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 099
56 Lt Lat Clear: 200
58 Deck Cond: 6
59 Super Cond: 7
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 241
65 RdAppr Cond: 7
66 Inv Rate: 225
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: 3
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 7
75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381
76 Lgth Improv: 000252
88 Spec Flags: NNN2
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 11022012
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost: 000012
95 Rd Impr Cost: 000003
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000015
97 YrImpr Cost Est: 2008
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 30
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 050890
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs: O
121 Suff Rate: 0655
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: N
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495023062126 Dist Use: A
8 4A IR Control: 0646
8 5A IR Section: 02
11A IR Milept: 05735
8 6A IR Str No: 306
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15
5 4A IR Hwy No: 0047
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk: 0278
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign: +
11 4C IR RfMkDispl: 00384
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0233
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 10
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 04
29A IR AADT: 001450
30A IR AADT Yr: 2011
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 10
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 002760
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2031
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3263253378
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09602189808
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14134Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 234
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 03
11 Milepnt: 15242
8 6 Str No: 072
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0528
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00765
4 Place Code: 07150
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int: 197405
(007-0) Facility Carried
FM 17
(009-0) Location
1.33 MI E OF SH 19
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1702
DI
10
CO
234
CONT
0495
SC
03
STR
072
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32341117
17 Longitude: 095500415
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 02
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049503001
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1962
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 032650
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 2
32 Appr Width: 022
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 15
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 1000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 361
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0540
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0062
49 Str Lgth: 000226
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0229
52 Deck Width: 0255
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1608
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 101
56 Lt Lat Clear: 188
58 Deck Cond: 6
59 Super Cond: 6
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 237
65 RdAppr Cond: 6
66 Inv Rate: 222
67 Str Eval: 5
68 Deck Geom: 2
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 7
75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381
76 Lgth Improv: 000226
88 Spec Flags: NNN2
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 11132012
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost: 000010
95 Rd Impr Cost: 000003
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000013
97 YrImpr Cost Est: 2008
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 31
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 045710
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs: O
121 Suff Rate: 0565
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: N
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495030722126 Dist Use: A
8 4A IR Control: 0443
8 5A IR Section: 03
11A IR Milept: 10553
8 6A IR Str No: 072
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15
5 4A IR Hwy No: 0017
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk: 0288
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign: +
11 4C IR RfMkDispl: 00998
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0229
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 13
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 04
29A IR AADT: 003100
30A IR AADT Yr: 2011
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 07
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 004340
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2031
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3256976889
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09583448622
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14138Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 234
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 03
11 Milepnt: 16968
8 6 Str No: 076
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0530
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00506
4 Place Code: 07150
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int: 198009
(007-0) Facility Carried
FM 1255
(009-0) Location
3.06 MI E OF SH 19
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1700
DI
10
CO
234
CONT
0495
SC
03
STR
076
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32333371
17 Longitude: 095482821
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 02
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049503001
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1962
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 032650
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 2
32 Appr Width: 023
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 45
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 1000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 361
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0540
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0085
49 Str Lgth: 000302
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0228
52 Deck Width: 0255
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1607
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 107
56 Lt Lat Clear: 188
58 Deck Cond: 5
59 Super Cond: 6
60 SubstrCond: 6
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 243
65 RdAppr Cond: 4
66 Inv Rate: 226
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: 3
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 6
75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381
76 Lgth Improv: 000302
88 Spec Flags: NNN2
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 11132012
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost: 000014
95 Rd Impr Cost: 000004
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000018
97 YrImpr Cost Est: 2008
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 31
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 045710
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs: O
121 Suff Rate: 0655
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: N
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495030762126 Dist Use: A
8 4A IR Control: 1322
8 5A IR Section: 02
11A IR Milept: 03932
8 6A IR Str No: 076
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15
5 4A IR Hwy No: 1255
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk: 0644
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign: +
11 4C IR RfMkDispl: 00957
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0228
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 13
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 04
29A IR AADT: 001300
30A IR AADT Yr: 2011
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 05
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 001820
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2031
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3255936387
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09580783523
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14147Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 234
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 03
11 Milepnt: 23737
8 6 Str No: 088
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0537
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00325
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int: 197405
(007-0) Facility Carried
FM 773
(009-0) Location
0.35 MI W OF FM 16
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1608
DI
10
CO
234
CONT
0495
SC
03
STR
088
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32311355
17 Longitude: 095420410
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 02
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049503002
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1962
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 032650
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 2
32 Appr Width: 022
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 15
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 1000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 361
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0540
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0062
49 Str Lgth: 000226
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0233
52 Deck Width: 0257
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1601
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 098
56 Lt Lat Clear: 061
58 Deck Cond: 5
59 Super Cond: 6
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 237
65 RdAppr Cond: 6
66 Inv Rate: 222
67 Str Eval: 5
68 Deck Geom: 4
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 7
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNN2
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 10242012
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000000
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 188
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 31
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 045710
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0672
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: N
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495030882126 Dist Use: A
8 4A IR Control: 1099
8 5A IR Section: 04
11A IR Milept: 05916
8 6A IR Str No: 088
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15
5 4A IR Hwy No: 0773
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk: 0286
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign: +
11 4C IR RfMkDispl: 01894
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0233
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 01
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 05
29A IR AADT: 000430
30A IR AADT Yr: 2011
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 06
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 000820
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2031
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3252043036
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09570114026
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14166Page: Date:
2 District: 10
3 County: 234
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 03
11 Milepnt: 30031
8 6 Str No: 110
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0543
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00654
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
LITTLE SANDY CREEK
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int:
(007-0) Facility Carried
IH 20
(009-0) Location
2.75 MI E OF FM 314
10 RtMinVrtClear: 9999
DI
10
CO
234
CONT
0495
SC
03
STR
110
DUP
0
STR-F
1
16 Latitude: 32295796
17 Longitude: 095354978
19 Detour Lgth: 01
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 02
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049503002
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1962
28 1 Lanes On: 04
28 2 Lanes Under: 00
29 AADT: 031700
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 080
33 Median: 3
34 Skew: 00
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 0N01
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: 0
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 15
43 1 Mn Span Ty:
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type: 23
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan:
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 005
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0005
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0403
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0010
49 Str Lgth: 000054
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0000
52 Deck Width: 0000
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: N
54 2 VrtClr Under: 0000
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: N
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 999
56 Lt Lat Clear: 000
58 Deck Cond: N
59 Super Cond: N
60 SubstrCond: N
61 Chan Prot: 6
62 Culvert: 5
64 Oper Rate: 249
65 RdAppr Cond: 6
66 Inv Rate: 236
67 Str Eval: 5
68 Deck Geom: N
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: 9
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNNN
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 09282012
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost:
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: N
108 1 MSp WrSurf: NNN
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 32
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: 8
114 Future AADT: 044380
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0667
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg:
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495031101126 Dist Use: C
8 4A IR Control:
8 5A IR Section:
11A IR Milept:
8 6A IR Str No:
8 3A IR Dupl Over:
5 1A IR Str Funct:
5 3A IR Designation:
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys:
5 4A IR Hwy No:
5 5A IR Dir:
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear:
10A IR MnVrtClear:
19A IR Byps Lgth:
20A IR Toll:
26A IR Func Class:
29A IR AADT:
30A IR AADT Yr:
100A IR DefHwy Des:
101A IR Parl Str:
102A IR Traf Dir:
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS:
109A IR AADTTrkPct:
110A IR Natl Ntwk:
114A IR Fut AADT:
115A IR FAADT Yr:
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 1
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3249943212
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09559716189
17 2 GPSColMeth: 3
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14240Page: Date:
2 District: 18
3 County: 130
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 01
11 Milepnt: 06272
8 6 Str No: 164
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0501
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00392
4 Place Code: 42150
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 198804
11 1A MiPt Date Int: 197405
(007-0) Facility Carried
SH 34 SB
(009-0) Location
0.87 MI E OF FM 2578
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1709
DI
18
CO
130
CONT
0495
SC
01
STR
164
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32420509
17 Longitude: 096163113
19 Detour Lgth: 00
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 06
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049501001
26 Func Class: 11
27 Yr Built: 1964
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 047930
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 028
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 30
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 0001
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 341
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0382
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0095
49 Str Lgth: 000336
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0280
52 Deck Width: 0311
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1607
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 089
56 Lt Lat Clear: 455
58 Deck Cond: 6
59 Super Cond: 5
60 SubstrCond: 5
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 249
65 RdAppr Cond: 6
66 Inv Rate: 236
67 Str Eval: 5
68 Deck Geom: 3
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 3
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381
76 Lgth Improv: 000336
88 Spec Flags: NNN2
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 03252012
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost: 000019
95 Rd Impr Cost: 000005
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000024
97 YrImpr Cost Est: 2010
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 15
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 067100
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs: O
121 Suff Rate: 0633
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: N
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495011642126 Dist Use: 14 AN
8 4A IR Control: 0173
8 5A IR Section: 04
11A IR Milept: 02522
8 6A IR Str No: 164
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 13
5 4A IR Hwy No: 0034
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk: 0314
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign: +
11 4C IR RfMkDispl: 00102
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0280
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 01
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 14
29A IR AADT: 004300
30A IR AADT Yr: 2011
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: L
102A IR Traf Dir: 1
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 18
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 006020
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2031
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet: 0
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3270141261
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09627531285
17 2 GPSColMeth: 4
63 MethOperRate: 1
65 1 MethInvRate: 1
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14270Page: Date:
2 District: 18
3 County: 130
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 01
11 Milepnt: 17288
8 6 Str No: 208
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0512
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00523
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 198804
11 1A MiPt Date Int: 197405
(007-0) Facility Carried
FM 2965
(009-0) Location
6.20 MI E OF FM 429/2728
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1609
DI
18
CO
130
CONT
0495
SC
01
STR
208
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32391907
17 Longitude: 096053859
19 Detour Lgth: 00
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 06
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049501002
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1965
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 036680
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 2
32 Appr Width: 024
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 30
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 0001
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 341
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0394
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0095
49 Str Lgth: 000337
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0240
52 Deck Width: 0257
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1605
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 081
56 Lt Lat Clear: 441
58 Deck Cond: 6
59 Super Cond: 6
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 247
65 RdAppr Cond: 7
66 Inv Rate: 228
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: 4
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 3
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381
76 Lgth Improv: 000337
88 Spec Flags: NNN21998
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 05022012
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost: 000016
95 Rd Impr Cost: 000004
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000020
97 YrImpr Cost Est: 2010
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 188
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 17
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 051350
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs: O
121 Suff Rate: 0696
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: N
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495012082126 Dist Use: 14
8 4A IR Control: 3022
8 5A IR Section: 02
11A IR Milept: 01474
8 6A IR Str No: 208
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15
5 4A IR Hwy No: 2965
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk: 0272
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign: +
11 4C IR RfMkDispl: 01474
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0240
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 06
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 05
29A IR AADT: 001900
30A IR AADT Yr: 2011
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 14
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 002660
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2031
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet: 0
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3265529660
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09609405177
17 2 GPSColMeth: 4
63 MethOperRate: 1
65 1 MethInvRate: 1
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14273Page: Date:
2 District: 19
3 County: 103
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 08
11 Milepnt: 07328
8 6 Str No: 240
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0604
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00242
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int: 197405
(007-0) Facility Carried
FM 450
(009-0) Location
2.20 MI S OF US 80
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1608
DI
19
CO
103
CONT
0495
SC
08
STR
240
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32282459
17 Longitude: 094344701
19 Detour Lgth: 00
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 06
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049508001
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1965
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 027000
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 5
32 Appr Width: 026
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 13
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 1000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 1131
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 341
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0460
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0065
49 Str Lgth: 000231
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0277
52 Deck Width: 0327
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1511
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 155
56 Lt Lat Clear: 205
58 Deck Cond: 7
59 Super Cond: 7
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 249
65 RdAppr Cond: 7
66 Inv Rate: 236
67 Str Eval: 7
68 Deck Geom: 3
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 5
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381
76 Lgth Improv: 000231
88 Spec Flags: NNNN
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 08072013
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost: 000013
95 Rd Impr Cost: 000003
96 Tot Proj Cost: 000016
97 YrImpr Cost Est: 2009
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 2
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 188
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 32
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 037880
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs: O
121 Suff Rate: 0712
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: N
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495082402126 Dist Use:
8 4A IR Control: 0843
8 5A IR Section: 06
11A IR Milept: 25990
8 6A IR Str No: 240
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15
5 4A IR Hwy No: 0450
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk: 0286
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign: +
11 4C IR RfMkDispl: 01738
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0277
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 15
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 04
29A IR AADT: 004600
30A IR AADT Yr: 2011
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 12
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 008000
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2031
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3247349845
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09457972478
17 2 GPSColMeth: 4
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14299Page: Date:
2 District: 19
3 County: 103
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 08
11 Milepnt: 04763
8 6 Str No: 271
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0601
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00754
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
IH 20
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int: 197405
(007-0) Facility Carried
LANSING SWITCH RD
(009-0) Location
2.70 MI E OF LP 281
10 RtMinVrtClear: 1703
DI
19
CO
103
CONT
0495
SC
08
STR
271
DUP
0
STR-F
2
16 Latitude: 32280010
17 Longitude: 094371727
19 Detour Lgth: 00
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 06
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049508004
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1966
28 1 Lanes On: 02
28 2 Lanes Under: 04
29 AADT: 027060
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 5
32 Appr Width: 020
33 Median: 0
34 Skew: 15
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 0000
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: N
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 11
43 1 Mn Span Ty: 1131
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type:
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan: 341
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 004
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0004
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0550
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0070
49 Str Lgth: 000262
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0240
52 Deck Width: 0272
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H
54 2 VrtClr Under: 1603
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 196
56 Lt Lat Clear: 201
58 Deck Cond: 7
59 Super Cond: 5
60 SubstrCond: 7
61 Chan Prot: N
62 Culvert: N
64 Oper Rate: 249
65 RdAppr Cond: 7
66 Inv Rate: 236
67 Str Eval: 5
68 Deck Geom: 4
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 5
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: N
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNNN
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 08072013
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost:
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1
108 1 MSp WrSurf: 188
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 33
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: N
114 Future AADT: 037880
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0666
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg: Y
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495082712126 Dist Use:
8 4A IR Control: AA05
8 5A IR Section: 15
11A IR Milept: 04815
8 6A IR Str No: 271
8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0
5 1A IR Str Funct: 1
5 3A IR Designation: 1
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 21
5 4A IR Hwy No: 3424
5 5A IR Dir: 0
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear: 0240
10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999
19A IR Byps Lgth: 06
20A IR Toll: 3
26A IR Func Class: 06
29A IR AADT: 002000
30A IR AADT Yr: 2007
100A IR DefHwy Des: 0
101A IR Parl Str: N
102A IR Traf Dir: 2
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS: 0
109A IR AADTTrkPct: 00
110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0
114A IR Fut AADT: 002000
115A IR FAADT Yr: 2027
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 2
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3246669532
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09462146449
17 2 GPSColMeth: 4
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14310Page: Date:
2 District: 19
3 County: 103
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 09
11 Milepnt: 21186
8 6 Str No: 216
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0618
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00028
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
COX CREEK
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int:
(007-0) Facility Carried
IH 20
(009-0) Location
0.80 MI E OF US 59
10 RtMinVrtClear: 9999
DI
19
CO
103
CONT
0495
SC
09
STR
216
DUP
0
STR-F
1
16 Latitude: 32293024
17 Longitude: 094204276
19 Detour Lgth: 05
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 06
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049509001
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1965
28 1 Lanes On: 04
28 2 Lanes Under: 00
29 AADT: 028840
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 076
33 Median: 2
34 Skew: 45
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 0N01
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: 0
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 15
43 1 Mn Span Ty:
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type: 23
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan:
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 003
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0003
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0380
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0010
49 Str Lgth: 000046
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0000
52 Deck Width: 0000
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: N
54 2 VrtClr Under: 0000
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: N
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 999
56 Lt Lat Clear: 000
58 Deck Cond: N
59 Super Cond: N
60 SubstrCond: N
61 Chan Prot: 5
62 Culvert: 6
64 Oper Rate: 249
65 RdAppr Cond: 5
66 Inv Rate: 236
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: N
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: 6
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNNN
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 08292013
91 Des Insp Freq: 24
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost:
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 0
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: N
108 1 MSp WrSurf: NNN
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 32
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: 8
114 Future AADT: 040380
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0690
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg:
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495092161126 Dist Use:
8 4A IR Control:
8 5A IR Section:
11A IR Milept:
8 6A IR Str No:
8 3A IR Dupl Over:
5 1A IR Str Funct:
5 3A IR Designation:
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys:
5 4A IR Hwy No:
5 5A IR Dir:
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear:
10A IR MnVrtClear:
19A IR Byps Lgth:
20A IR Toll:
26A IR Func Class:
29A IR AADT:
30A IR AADT Yr:
100A IR DefHwy Des:
101A IR Parl Str:
102A IR Traf Dir:
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS:
109A IR AADTTrkPct:
110A IR Natl Ntwk:
114A IR Fut AADT:
115A IR FAADT Yr:
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 1
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3249173256
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09434520996
17 2 GPSColMeth: 4
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 0000
Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File
27-Mar-14333Page: Date:
2 District: 19
3 County: 103
8 4 Control: 0495
8 5 Section: 10
11 Milepnt: 30533
8 6 Str No: 129
5 3 Rt Design: 1
5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0
5 2 Rt System: 11
5 4 Rt No: 0020
5 5 Rt Dir: 0
11 1B RefMrk: 0627
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
11 3B RfMk Sign: +
11 4B RfMk Displ: 00522
4 Place Code: 00000
(006-1) Feature Crossed
BUTLER CREEK
6 2 Crit Bdg:
11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405
11 1A MiPt Date Int:
(007-0) Facility Carried
IH 20
(009-0) Location
3.50 MI E OF FM 2199
10 RtMinVrtClear: 9999
DI
19
CO
103
CONT
0495
SC
10
STR
129
DUP
0
STR-F
1
16 Latitude: 32293306
17 Longitude: 094105936
19 Detour Lgth: 06
20 Toll: 3
21 Custodian: 01
22 Owner: 01
22 1 Maint Sect: 06
23 1 Proj Type: 1
23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049510031
26 Func Class: 01
27 Yr Built: 1965
28 1 Lanes On: 04
28 2 Lanes Under: 00
29 AADT: 026440
30 AADT Year: 2011
31 Design Load: 4
32 Appr Width: 072
33 Median: 2
34 Skew: 30
35 Str Flared: 0
36 Trf Safe Feat: 0N01
37 Hist Signif: 3
38 Nav Controls: 0
39 Nav VrtClear: 000
40 Nav HrzClear: 0000
41 Oper Status: A
41 1 Load Type: N
41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN
42 Serv On Under: 15
43 1 Mn Span Ty:
43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:
43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:
43 4 Culv Type: 23
43 5 Tunnel Ty:
44 1 Substr MSpan:
44 2 Sub MjAprSp:
44 3 Sub MnAprSp:
45 1 No MSpan: 003
45 2 No MjAprSp:
45 3 No MnAprSp:
46 Total No Spans: 0003
47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0360
48 Max Sp Lgth: 0008
49 Str Lgth: 000029
50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000
50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000
51 Rdwy Width: 0000
52 Deck Width: 0000
53 VrtClrOver: 9999
54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: N
54 2 VrtClr Under: 0000
55 1 LatClr RefFeat: N
55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 999
56 Lt Lat Clear: 000
58 Deck Cond: N
59 Super Cond: N
60 SubstrCond: N
61 Chan Prot: 6
62 Culvert: 6
64 Oper Rate: 249
65 RdAppr Cond: 7
66 Inv Rate: 236
67 Str Eval: 6
68 Deck Geom: N
69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N
70 Safe Load Cap: 5
71 Waterway Adeq: 6
72 ApprRdAlign: 8
75 Ty Wrk Repl:
76 Lgth Improv: 000000
88 Spec Flags: NNNN
96 1 Cost Improv: C
90 Last Inspec: 08192011
91 Des Insp Freq: 48
92 1 Frac Crit Det: N
92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N
92 3 Special Inspec: N
93 1 FracCrit Date:
93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:
93 3 SpecInsp Date:
94 BdgImpr Cost:
95 Rd Impr Cost:
96 Tot Proj Cost:
97 YrImpr Cost Est:
98 Border Bdg:
99 Border Bdg No:
100 Def Hwy Desn: 1
101 Parl Str Desn: N
102 Dir of Traffic: 2
103 Temp Str Desn:
104 NHS: 1
106 1 Widen Code: 1
107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N
107 1 Deck Ty MSp: N
108 1 MSp WrSurf: NNN
107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N
108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN
108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN
109 AADTTruck Pct: 33
110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1
111 Pier Protect:
112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y
113 Scour Crit: 8
114 Future AADT: 037020
115 FutAADT Year: 2031
116 MnNavVrtClear:
119 Orig Cost:
120 Def/Obs:
121 Suff Rate: 0690
122 Xref PrinRtID:
123 Xrf StrFncPRt:
113 1 Scour Vuln:
128 OvHt Load Dmg:
124 XRf IR ID:
125 XRf IRStr Func:
00495101291126 Dist Use:
8 4A IR Control:
8 5A IR Section:
11A IR Milept:
8 6A IR Str No:
8 3A IR Dupl Over:
5 1A IR Str Funct:
5 3A IR Designation:
5 6A IR Bus Sfx:
5 2A IR Hwy Sys:
5 4A IR Hwy No:
5 5A IR Dir:
11 1C IR Ref Mrk:
11 2C IR RefMkSfx:
11 3C IR RfMkSign:
11 4C IR RfMkDispl:
47A IR Hrz Clear:
10A IR MnVrtClear:
19A IR Byps Lgth:
20A IR Toll:
26A IR Func Class:
29A IR AADT:
30A IR AADT Yr:
100A IR DefHwy Des:
101A IR Parl Str:
102A IR Traf Dir:
103A IR Temp Str:
104A IR NHS:
109A IR AADTTrkPct:
110A IR Natl Ntwk:
114A IR Fut AADT:
115A IR FAADT Yr:
8 3 DupRtOver: 0
5 1 RtStrFunc 1
12 BaseHwyNet:
13 1 LRSInvRte:
13 2 LRSSubRte:
16 1 GPSLatitude: 3249251746
17 1 GPSLongitude: 09418315624
17 2 GPSColMeth: 4
63 MethOperRate: 5
65 1 MethInvRate: 5
105 FHWA Resvd:
11 2B RefMk Sfx:
12A IRBaseHwyNet:
13 1A IRLRSInvRte:
13 2A IRLRSSubRte:
106 Yr Reconstr: 1979
AEI
AppeEvalua-20 East Te
endixation xas Corrido
x G Resulr Study
ts
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study
Project Evaluation ‐ DRAFT
12/31/2014
Pavement Contidion Bridge Freight
System Performance and
CMAQ
Project ID County Road Limit from Limit to Advisory
Committee Preferences
Technical Score
Fatalities aRatio (Crash
rate/Statewide Average)
Interchange Ratings
Vertical
Clearanceb
Mainlane Pavement
Condition Score
Bridge Condition
Average Annual Daily Truck
Traffic (2012) c
Volume to Capacity Ratio
(2012)
New Frontage Road AF-1 Dallas I-20 Lawson Rd FM 740 4 55 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 5Median Barrier Addition AE-1 Dallas I-20 Loop 635 Dallas County Line 4 58 5 1 1 1 4 1 5 5
TC-1 Dallas I-20 I-635 Lawson Rd 2 58 5 1 1 1 4 1 5 5TC-2 Dallas I-20 Lawson Rd Dallas County Line 0 50 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 3
Frontage Road Reconstruction TG-1 Dallas I-20 Seagonville Road Lawson Road 2 50 3 1 1 1 3 1 5 5Ramp Improvement TI-1 Dallas Lawson Rd - - 0 40 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 3
AB-1 Kaufman SH 34 - - 2 68 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 5AD-1 Kaufman FM 429 - - 0 45 1 5 2 1 1 2 1 5AD-3 Kaufman Wilson Road - - 0 20 1AD-4 Kaufman FM 429 - - 0 45 1 5 2 1 1 2 1 5
Added Capacity AC-1 Kaufman I-20 SH 557 Wilson Rd 1 58 5 5 1 1 2 1 3 5AF-2 Kaufman I-20 FM 740 FM 741 0 35 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3AF-3 Kaufman I-20 SH 557 FM 138 3 53 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 5AF-13 Kaufman FM 741 SH 557 Kaufman 3 45 5 3 1 1 3 1 3 1TB-2 Kaufman FM 2965 - - 0 63 3 5 4 1 1 3 3 5TD-1 Kaufman CR 310 (Hiram Rd) - - 0 43 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 5TC-3 Kaufman I-20 Dallas County Line FM 741 0 35 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-4 Kaufman I-20 FM 741 SH 557 0 53 5 3 1 1 2 1 3 5TC-5 Kaufman I-20 Wilson Rd FM 310 0 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-6 Kaufman I-20 FM 310 Kaufman County Line 0 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5TI-2 Kaufman FM 740 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-3 Kaufman FM 741 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3
TI-4 Kaufman FM 2932 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-5 Kaufman FM 1641 - - 0 50 1 5 1 5 1 1 3 3TI-6 Kaufman FM 148 - - 0 55 3 5 1 5 1 1 3 3TI-7 Kaufman SH 557 - - 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-8 Kaufman CR 304 - - 0 38 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 3TJ-8 Kaufman SH 34 - - 2 68 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 5TJ-10 Kaufman SH 34 - - 2 68 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 5
Interchange Improvements AA-3 Van Zandt FM 859 - - 0 53 1 5 2 5 1 3 1 3
AF-4 Van Zandt I-20 FM 47 SH 64 1 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5AF-5 Van Zandt I-20 SH 19 FM 17 0 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TA-1 Van Zandt SH 19 - - 1 53 5 5 2 1 1 1 3 3TB-3 Van Zandt FM 47 - - 1 60 1 3 5 3 1 3 3 5TB-4 Van Zandt CR 3412 - - 1 53 1 5 5 1 1 2 1 5TB-5 Van Zandt SH 64 - - 1 60 3 5 5 1 1 1 3 5TB-6 Van Zandt FM 1255 - - 0 55 3 5 5 1 1 3 1 3TB-7 Van Zandt CR 1311 - - 0 48 1 5 4 1 1 3 1 3TD-2 Van Zandt FM 3439 / CR 3442 - - 0 48 3 1 5 1 1 2 1 5TD-3 Van Zandt FM 17 - - 1 55 1 5 3 1 1 3 3 5TD-4 Van Zandt CR 1308 - - 0 40 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 3TD-5 Van Zandt FM 773 / FM 16 - - 0 63 5 5 4 3 1 3 1 3TB-1 Van Zandt FM 314 - - 0 58 5 3 4 1 1 1 3 5TC-7 Van Zandt I-20 Kaufman County Line FM 47 0 55 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-8 Van Zandt I-20 FM 47 SH 64 1 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-9 Van Zandt I-20 SH 64 SH 19 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3
TC-10 Van Zandt I-20 SH 19 FM 1255 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-11 Van Zandt I-20 FM 1255 CR 1308 0 40 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-12 Van Zandt I-20 CR 1308 FM 773 0 38 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-13 Van Zandt I-20 FM 773 FM 314 0 48 5 3 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-14 Van Zandt I-20 FM 314 Van Zandt County Line 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3
Safety
New Frontage Road
VAN ZANDT
Added Capacity
Interchange Improvements
Project Type
KAUFM
AN
Bridge Modifications
I-20 East Texas Corridor Project Evaluation
Project Characteristics
DALLAS
Added Capacity
Ramp Improvement
Interchange Improvements
Added Capacity
Interchange Improvements
New Frontage Road
a Incidents within 1/2 a mile radius of an intersection have been assigned to its count. (2008‐2012)
b Bridge Database
c RHiNo 2012 Database AADT. DRAFT1
High Score (55<)
Mid Score (50‐54)
Low Score (50>)
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study
Project Evaluation ‐ DRAFT
12/31/2014
Project ID County Road Limit from Limit to Advisory
Committee Preferences
Technical Score
Fatalities aRatio (Crash
rate/Statewide Average)
Interchange Ratings
Vertical
Clearanceb
Mainlane Pavement
Condition Score
Bridge Condition
Average Annual Daily Truck
Traffic (2012) c
Volume to Capacity Ratio
(2012)Project Type
TG-2 Van Zandt I-20 County Line FM 47 1 55 5 3 1 1 3 1 3 5TG-3 Van Zandt I-20 US 64 SH 19 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TG-4 Van Zandt I-20 FM 17 CR 1311 0 48 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 3TG-5 Van Zandt I-20 CR 1311 FM 314 0 48 5 3 1 1 2 1 3 3TJ‐9 Van Zandt FM 859 - - 0 55 1 5 2 5 2 3 1 3
TJ-11 Van Zandt FM 47 - - 1 65 1 3 5 3 3 3 3 5TJ-12 Van Zandt FM 17 - - 1 58 1 5 3 1 2 3 3 5TJ-13 Van Zandt FM 1255 - - 0 55 3 5 5 1 1 3 1 3TJ-14 Van Zandt FM 773 - - 0 68 5 5 5 3 2 3 1 3
New Frontage Road AF-6 Van Zandt, Smith I-20 FM 314 SH 110 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3New Frontage Road AF-7 Smith I-20 Toll 49 US 271 8 53 5 5 1 1 2 1 3 3
TA-2 Smith US 69 - - 7 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TB-1 Van Zandt FM 314 - - 0 53 3 5 4 1 1 1 3 3TB-8 Smith CR 35 (Lavender Rd) - - 2 48 3 5 4 1 1 1 1 3TB-9 Smith FM 2015 - - 0 45 1 5 4 1 1 2 1 3TD-6 Smith CR 426 - - 0 45 1 5 3 1 1 3 1 3TD-7 Smith CR 431 - - 0 40 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 3TD-8 Smith SH 155 (Lawton Ave) - - 0 53 3 5 3 1 1 2 3 3TD-9 Smith FM 757 - - 0 35 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 3
TD-10 Smith CR 3101 - - 2 50 5 5 2 1 1 2 1 3TD-11 Smith CR 3111 - - 0 40 1 5 2 1 1 2 1 3TD-12 Smith FM 14 - - 0 45 1 5 2 1 1 2 3 3TC-15 Smith I-20 Van Zandt County Line CR 110 0 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-16 Smith I-20 CR 110 US 69 7 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-17 Smith I-20 US 69 FM 14 0 48 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-18 Smith I-20 FM 14 SH 155 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-19 Smith I-20 SH 155 US 271 0 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-20 Smith I-20 US 271 Smith County Line 1 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TJ-5 Smith SH 110 - - 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 3TJ-6 Smith FM 849 - - 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 3TG-6 Smith I-20 SH 110 FM 849 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TG-7 Smith I-20 US 271 Gregg County Line 1 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TG-8 Smith I-20 Gregg County Line SH 42 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-9 Smith CR 110 - - 0 55 3 5 1 1 1 5 3 3
TI-10 Smith FM 849 - - 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 3TI-11 Smith US 271 - - 0 45 1 5 1 1 1 3 3 3
Interchange Improvements AD-2 Gregg SH 31 - - 2 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TJ-1 Gregg Fritz Swanson RD - - 0 40 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 3TJ-2 Gregg MLK Blvd - - 0 53 1 5 3 3 1 2 1 5TJ-3 Gregg FM 2087 - - 0 58 3 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ‐15 Gregg MLK Blvd - - 0 48 1 5 3 3 2 1 1 3TG-9 Gregg I-20 SH 42 FM 2087 3 55 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 3TG-10 Gregg I-20 FM 2087 Loop 281 W 1 60 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TG-11 Gregg I-20 Loop 281 W County Line 0 60 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TI-12 Gregg FM 3053 - - 0 45 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 5TI-13 Gregg SH 42 - - 1 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-14 Gregg FM 2087 - - 0 58 3 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TI-15 Gregg Loop 281 W / US 259 - - 1 45 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-21 Gregg I-20 Smith County Line SH 135 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-22 Gregg I-20 SH 135 SH 42 2 58 5 5 1 1 2 1 5 3TC-23 Gregg I-20 SH 42 FM 2087 1 55 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 3TC-24 Gregg I-20 FM 2087 Gregg County Line 1 60 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5
SMITH
Frontage Road Reconstruction
Ramp Improvement
VAN ZANDT
Bridge Modifications
Bridge Modifications
Ramp Improvement
Frontage Road Reconstruction
Added Capacity
Interchange Improvements
Bridge Modifications
Added Capacity
GREG
G
Frontage Road Reconstruction
a Incidents within 1/2 a mile radius of an intersection have been assigned to its count. (2008‐2012)
b Bridge Database
c RHiNo 2012 Database AADT. DRAFT2
High Score (55<)
Mid Score (50‐54)
Low Score (50>)
I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study
Project Evaluation ‐ DRAFT
12/31/2014
Project ID County Road Limit from Limit to Advisory
Committee Preferences
Technical Score
Fatalities aRatio (Crash
rate/Statewide Average)
Interchange Ratings
Vertical
Clearanceb
Mainlane Pavement
Condition Score
Bridge Condition
Average Annual Daily Truck
Traffic (2012) c
Volume to Capacity Ratio
(2012)Project Type
AF-8 Gregg, Harrison I-20 US 259 Loop 281 3 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3AF-9 Harrison I-20 FM 968 SH 43 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3AF-10 Harrison I-20 SH 43 FM 31 4 50 3 5 1 1 3 1 3 3AF-11 Harrison I-20 FM 31 Buck Sherrod Rd 2 45 1 3 1 1 5 1 3 3AF-12 Harrison I-20 US 80 FM 2199 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-25 Harrison I-20 Gregg County Line Loop 281 1 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-26 Harrison I-20 Loop 281 FM 450 1 55 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TC-27 Harrison I-20 FM 450 FM 3251 0 55 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TC-28 Harrison I-20 FM 3251 SH 43 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 3TC-29 Harrison I-20 SH 43 US 59 0 43 1 5 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-30 Harrison I-20 US 59 FM 31 1 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-31 Harrison I-20 FM 31 FM 2199 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-32 Harrison I-20 FM 2199 US 80 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-33 Harrison I-20 US 80 FM 134 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-34 Harrison I-20 FM 134 Texas State Line 0 45 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 5TJ-4 Harrison FM 450 - - 0 53 1 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ-7 Harrison Lansing Switch Road - - 0 50 1 5 1 1 1 3 5 3
TJ-16 Harrison FM 450 - - 0 58 3 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ-17 Harrison US 59 - - 0 53 1 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ-7 Harrison Lansing Switch Road - - 0 54 1 5 5 1 3 1 3
TG-12 Harrison I-20 County Line Loop 281 E 0 45 1 5 1 1 3 1 3 3TG-13 Harrison I-20 Loop 281 E FM 450 0 58 3 5 1 1 2 1 5 5TG-14 Harrison I-20 FM 450 FM 3251 0 60 3 5 1 1 3 1 5 5TG-15 Harrison I-20 US 80 Texas State Line 0 53 5 3 1 1 2 1 5 3TI-16 Harrison Loop 281 E - - 0 43 1 5 1 1 1 2 3 3TI-17 Harrison FM 3251 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-18 Harrison FM 31 - - 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-19 Harrison FM 2199 - - 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3
HARRISON
Bridge Modifications
New Frontage Road
Added Capacity
Ramp Improvements
Frontage Road Reconstruction
a Incidents within 1/2 a mile radius of an intersection have been assigned to its count. (2008‐2012)
b Bridge Database
c RHiNo 2012 Database AADT. DRAFT3
High Score (55<)
Mid Score (50‐54)
Low Score (50>)